The Clarion Bell Warning


As I was putting together my own warning about Islam’s danger to America’s culture of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, Justin Smith sent a similar and admittedly much more erudite submission than my effort. Justin’s patriotism in this essay is justifiably passionate and undoubtedly drive Multicultural Leftists into apoplexy.

 

JRH 6/11/18

Please Support NCCR

***********************

The Clarion Bell Warning

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 6/9/2018 3:49 PM

 

I have been ringing the clarion bell warning on the existential threat of Islam for years — since 1979 — and it is only in the last few recent years, even after 9/11, that Americans even seem to remotely understand the methodology and machinations within Islam, Sharia law and all that it demands of its adherents and all non-Muslims they engage.

There are some who foolishly believe Muslims are just like us and only differing by praying on mats pointed to Mecca, with their faces on the floor. Wrong! Their history belies their intentions toward you. Do not be beguiled by the weakest among them; be warned by their most violent and pernicious and be aware it is impossible to tell the difference.

 

Muslims aren’t necessarily trying to “change our Constitution”, but they do use its freedoms to support their call for Sharia Law in America. They work continually to try to codify Sharia Law into U.S. Law, but fortunately, many states have passed the American Laws for American Courts bill that prevents a judge from considering any Sharia precedent in a case.

 

This does not stop the current advancement of Sharia Law as a parallel system in our communities, which leads to the Balkanization of any nation. Sharia Law is the mechanism primarily behind the creation of entire Muslim operated communities, cities and regions — the “no go zones” one finds in France, Germany and the U.K and now here in America, in places like Dearborn, Michigan, Minneapolis, Minnesota and Islamberg, New York.

 

Ask yourself, what is the value to us from the world of Mohammedanism and Islam? What value has Islam contributed to human society in the last 500 years? Name one worthy thing besides couscous it has given the world in that time?

 

In every country where Muslims are in the minority, they are obsessed with minority rights. In every country with a Muslim majority, there are no minority rights.

 

But it’s not just the Muslims who are representing the threat to our Constitution and the entire nation by way of Sharia Law.

 

During her tenure as Dean of Harvard Law School, Elena Kagan, now a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, revealed, inadvertently or not, the evil agenda of the Leftists in her May 2007 presentation, in which she stated that Sharia Law was compatible with our Constitution and could be incorporated within U.S. law. In Dec. 2005, she accepted $20 million from Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal for her pet project at Harvard, the Islamic Legal Studies Program.

 

There exists an entire group of people in all echelons of our government, from the local and state to the federal, some citizens and some not, who have been educated and lived much of their lives abroad. From the former “president” on down, many of these people have little connection and even less love for our Republic and the traditional American culture and principles upon which the U.S. was founded. These collaborators and traitors continue to tolerate the abuses and acts of terrorism those sons of Mohammed commit, and while they do not hesitate to command a 95 year old invalid to remove her diaper in an airport, a “possible security risk”, due to their own cowardice and complicity, they cannot and will not name the enemy, because the enemy is them and their Muslim allies.

 

There is one common thread for all the misery, death and suffering in the Middle-East, which is pervasive and dominant…Islam. To welcome its adherents and believers into your midst is to welcome coming misery, suffering and death in equal proportions to the size of any host nation’s Muslim population, until they reach majority at which time misery metastasizes.

 

The formula here is not hard to discern. They complain about discrimination as a minority until they gain control, at which time their discrimination against other ideologies and all religions is all consuming.

 

The enemy is Islam and the Sharia Law doctrine that accompanies it!

 

There is a ring of fire and death around Muslim territory in the Middle-East, South-East Asia, Africa and the “Stans” regions. Any area Islam touches is consumed by and impaled by the eon-and-a-half-old program of proselytizing with force and conquest, by the zealots of the ideology of Islam, the Muslim so-called “religion of peace”. To invite them in is to invite the enemy into your camp. Keep Islam confined within the ring.

 

One should note that Japan does not allow Islam to exist inside its country. Islam cannot be practiced and Muslims are not allowed to live or work there. Muslims are not allowed to immigrate to Japan; and just recently, on Friday June 8th, Austria announced that it would expel sixty Turkish-funded imams and close seven mosques, in their crack-down on political Islam.

 

Marine Le Pen, former French presidential candidate stated: “Austria is taking things in hand and showing that ‘when you want to, you can!'”

 

Matteo Salvini, Italy’s new interior minister, exclaimed: “Those who exploit their faith to endanger a country’s security should be expelled!”

 

And that is why our future elections remain critical, if we do not want to continue on our own current path of Islamization and become just as cowed and badgered and suppressed, especially through hate-speech “laws”, as Eurabia. We need to elect people who understand the existential threat of Islam and who will pass laws aimed at deporting Muslims and extinguishing and eradicating Islam’s influence and presence in our country.

 

All Muslims must be expelled from America and all mosques destroyed. Muslim immigration to America must be halted.

 

By Justin O. Smith

______________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

All source links are by the Editor.

 

© John R. Houk

 

Russian Strategy and Europe’s Refugee Crisis


Paul Sutliff sent me a link to a Center for Security Policy (CSP) pdf link with this recommendation:

 

This is a must read. I am hoping to have at least one of the authors on my June 28th show when I move to Thursdays. This is a must read!

 

That show, by the way, is Civilization Jihad Awareness with Paul Sutliff on Blog Talk Radio. The show comes on live, but it is archived. You should go there and catch up.

 

The pdf is 20 pages with foot notes. Take your time and thoroughly read the CSP analysis. I could probably write a whole other post trying to introduce this extremely important analysis, but I won’t.

 

That which I say will little justice to the content presented, but here goes a brief thought. The central bad guy as to American National Security is Russia. You will discover that Russia is at the heart of the Muslim Refugee crisis smacking Europe. AND in relation to that you should understand the Russian goal is destabilization first in Europe and second in the USA. Russia even has tentacle infiltrating European Nationalist movements to foment societal chaos while also publicly supporting the Multicultural Left ideals. This duo strategy has only one purpose: cultural destabilization designed to disunite European resolve and alienate a united Europe away from America.

 

TRUST ME! Those brief words about “Russian Strategy and Europe’s Refugee Crisis” is only the mere tip of the iceberg that I pray you take the time to fully understand what the authors J.R. Nyquist and Dr. Anca-Maria Cernea are trying to enlighten you concerning the survival of our Western Culture via strategic concepts of National Security and National Interests.

 

JRH 6/5/18

Please Support NCCR

************************

Russian Strategy and Europe’s Refugee Crisis

 

By J.R. Nyquist and Dr. Anca-Maria Cernea

May 29, 2018

Center for Security Policy

 

INTRODUCTION

 

Forty years ago, a serious long-term problem confronting Moscow was the USSR’s fast-growing Muslim population. It was then speculated that the Soviet Union’s high Muslim birthrate would turn the USSR into a majority Muslim country by the middle of the twenty-first century. It is a strange joke, and more than a curious twist of fate, that NATO faces this same prospect today.

 

The Russian armed forces officially moved into Syria on 30 September 2015. Already a massive Muslim “refugee” invasion of Europe was underway, stretching through the spring and summer of that year. This migrant flood occurred without a dramatic change in the Syrian crisis. According to a report by investigative journalist Witold Gadowski, published in mid-September 2015, the people then pouring into the heart of Europe included more than refugees, and possibly included ISIS terrorist infiltrators.1

 

Gadowski was a well-known war reporter, documentary film director, and winner of several journalism prizes in Poland and abroad. He went to Syria in 2015 and discovered that in the territory controlled by the Islamic State (ISIS), there was no chance for anyone to leave ISIS-controlled territory without permission. As he explained, the punishment for attempting to escape was crucifixion.2

 

In Gadowski’s opinion, the flood of refugees had been triggered by decisions made in Moscow, and perhaps in Tehran. In fact, the mass killing of Syrian civilians was an ongoing project of the Russian-backed Syrian dictator, Bashar al-Assad – whose troops were killing seven times more civilians than ISIS.3 Once the Russian bombers arrived, even more civilians were targeted.4

 

Of special interest, and contrary to public declarations, Russian and Chinese technicians were busy helping ISIS to maintain its captured oil rigs and refineries, while Russian trained Iraqi military officers (formerly in Saddam Hussein’s army), were leading ISIS forces against the Baghdad government (which government set up a joint intelligence headquarters in league with Iran and Russia).5 From this and other evidence it appears that Russia has been playing a double game in the Middle East.

 

Using the Iraqi oil infrastructure, relying on clandestine Russian technical support, ISIS earned $800 million in annual revenues by “selling more than 60,000 barrels of oil per day.” But this was not the Islamic State’s only source of income. According to Gadowski:

 

…the Islamic State trades artworks and archeological artifacts. It is not true that the monuments of antique culture are destroyed. They are sold and bring a large income. In 90 percent of the cases, this is happening through the Russian mafia. The Islamic State and the wave of refugees bring profits to the Russian, Turkish and Albanian mafias.6

 

In this matter the Russian mafia is not simply the Russian mafia, and the same can be said of mafia organizations which have appeared throughout the “former” communist world. As noted by Brian Whitmore of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, “Organized crime is now a major element of Russian statecraft.”7 According to Gadowski, Russia’s game is to “checkmate Europe, and to a lesser extent the United States.” Outwardly Russia pretends to fight ISIS. In reality, Russia helps ISIS. Essential to the plan, the Syrians were generating refugees by terrorizing civilians in Syria. As stated above, Gadowski believed that a secret Islamic State Terrorist Unit (AMNI) was placing fanatical killers among the refugees. In this way a vast network of suicide bombers and murderers entered Europe.8

 

After arriving in Syria, Russian air units launched bombing raids against Syrian civilians, adding to the refugee flow in late summer. Of course, the refugee crisis was well under way before the Russians arrived. It had peaked earlier. What the bombing showed, however, was Russia’s strategic intention. The Syrians and the Russians were following a pre-defined path. The bombers were the icing on a cake already baked. Long before the Russian bombers arrived other means of pressure had been employed by Syria – including the use of chemical weapons. Refugees (and terrorists) had long since flooded into neighboring Turkey. Through the spring and summer of 2015, the numbers were getting larger and larger. A significant proportion of these masses moved into Europe. This paper will present evidence and arguments that Russia and her allies (Syria and Iran) set this process in motion as part of a larger strategic design. The authors believe that Moscow does not act haphazardly. Rather, its moves are carefully thought-out in advance. The strategy being applied is complex, its objectives masked by disinformation and subterfuge, extortion and blackmail, organized crime and false flag terrorist operations.

 

THE ARAB SPRING

 

When rebellions began to break out in the Middle East several years ago, the former chief of Romanian intelligence, Ion Mihai Pacepa, wondered why the first rebellions in the series took place “only in Islamic countries that are pro-American.” He asked why the rebels were burning American flags. He thought it suspicious that the United States had no advanced warning of the mass demonstrations that swept the Arab world from Morocco to the Persian Gulf. Pacepa noted that “on the first day of the Cairo uprising” the demonstrators “were carrying flags displaying the hammer and sickle.” He called this “a mistake caused by overzealousness….”9

 

The rebellion that began on 17 December 2010 in Tunisia, and spread across the Arab world, was an attempt to sweep away “moderate” Arab regimes. It was not a revolution for freedom or democracy. As Richard Miniter wrote in a 2011 Forbes article, “Virtually every element of the media narrative [on the Arab Spring] … is wrong or misleading.” The rebellion was not a spontaneous reaction to local dictatorships. According to Miniter, Egypt’s chief of intelligence warned Gen. David Petraeus in 2010 that Iran – a close ally and client state of Moscow – was preparing to “bring down [Egypt’s] Mubarak regime.”10

 

Miniter was told by intelligence officials that “Iran’s agents are behind the street demonstrations and violent attacks on government buildings.” 11 Iran’s revolutionary activity throughout the region, however, was not merely Iranian. This activity was connected to Russia, and to Russia’s past support for the communist cause. According to an Iranian specialist, the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ali Khamenei, was educated in Moscow and may be a Russian intelligence asset. Worse yet, other top leaders in Iran were also educated in Russia, with ongoing ties to Moscow.12

 

In a recently published article by the Katehon Institute13 in Russia, B. Ozerov explained that the Soviet government in 1918 “was guided by understanding Islam as a close ideology to the communist doctrine.” After all, Islam favored ideals of equality, social justice, and the redistribution of wealth. According to Ozerov, Moscow’s initial plan in the region was “to transform Islam into an Eastern edition of Communism….”14

 

In a 4 July 1925 interview with the Tokyo Nichi Nichi Shimbun, Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin was asked if he believed revolutionary turmoil in China, India, Persia and Egypt was bound to sweep away the Western powers. “Yes, I do,” said the communist leader, who added that the West would be “attacked on two sides – in the rear as well as in front.”

 

RELATED INSIGHTS OF V. KALASHNIKOV AND A. ILLARIONOV

 

In June 2013 J.R. Nyquist interviewed a disaffected KGB officer in Russia named Viktor Kalashnikov. In reference to Syria, the former KGB lieutenant colonel said, “It’s all about struggle against the United States. All allies are measured in terms of their anti-Americanism. If they are anti-American, they are our friends.” Kalashnikov then referred to the deployment of “terrorist armies.” Armies composed of terrorists, said Kalashnikov, were better than old-fashioned Soviet tank armies. They were more flexible, and cheaper than tanks. “The head of the Russian state has publicly warned the West that … arms deliveries to the opposition in Syria might result in terrorist attacks against Europe. That’s a clear causus belli – a real terrorist threat,” said Kalashnikov.15

 

When Nyquist advanced the idea that the Cold War was over, Kalashnikov scoffed. This is yet another topic, he said. “But we have to ask what happened to the Soviet Union in 1991. It was dismantled for the sake of reorganization and for the sake of Russian power.” The Soviet generals were not happy with the strategic situation. The large tank armies of the Soviet Union were, in Kalashnikov’s words, “a wasting asset, especially after 1983.”16

 

The core strategy, he explained, “was splitting Europe from America.” In the 1980s this was attempted with the threat of war. But now, under present circumstances, a different method would have to be devised. “What happened on 9/11 was just an omen of things to come,” he explained.

 

In Part 1 of the interview, headlined “Russia’s Islamist Alliance, Plans to Destroy NATO,” the former KGB lieutenant colonel, who had been trained as a strategist, attempted to draw the interviewer’s attention to Russia’s support for the anti-immigrant parties in Europe. Here Kalashnikov referred to Islam as a Russian weapon in the destruction of NATO. Realizing the interviewer was perplexed, Kalashnikov said, “Let me talk about [the neo-fascists] in Hungary. They are pro-Putin. They are nationalists, and of course, they are absolutely anti-Semitic and anti-American.”17

 

What did the anti-immigrant parties have to do with “terrorist armies” in the Middle East? What did any of it have to do with splitting America off of Europe? Here was a question requiring careful consideration. To answer this question, one might well imagine how NATO would have prospered if Hillary Clinton and Marine Le Pen had won their respective elections. What if Europe followed France’s lead? Would the politically correct Americans remain allies with the new Europe? “What I would suggest,” said Kalashnikov, “is that your anti-terror experts read Vladimir Lenin who provided the textbook for terrorists. How they should set up combat units; who is to be killed first and second; what strategy and tactics to adopt. Lenin developed a complete theory for using terrorism to take power and govern a huge state. That was the beginning of Soviet strategy, statehood and government, as well as international policy.”18

 

Was Kalashnikov talking about Europe?

 

More than one year after Kalashnikov’s curious pronouncements, a former Kremlin economic advisor named Andrei Illarionov, made an even more curious statement. In a December 2014 television interview, Illarionov noted that Europe had reached its lowest level of defense readiness. He also noted that Russia was openly threatening the West with nuclear war. Illarionov then made an astonishing prediction, adding that “the European nations will not be very much surprised, let’s say, if in the spring of next year, 2015, there will be some kind of massive political movement – let’s say a kind of ‘Islamic spring.’”19

 

Being Russian himself, having worked in the Kremlin, it seems obvious that Illarionov had access to high-level sources. The coming “Islamic spring,” he said, would not occur in the Middle East, “but in Europe.” He mentioned destabilizing effects on “certain European countries” where the crisis would “consume the energy and attention of European leaders at a time when Mr. Putin would try and fulfill his neo-imperial project….”20

 

Illarionov was quite specific when he said the coming “Islamic spring” in Europe would involve “movements and activities … in European countries themselves.” When asked if this could be triggered by Russia, Illarionov said, “I am just warning … when it should happen … European societies should not be [too] much shocked and surprised.”

 

Illarionov’s prediction carries forward the suggestion that Moscow instigated the migrant crisis. For how else could Illarionov have known about an “Islamic spring” involving “movements and activities … in Europe”? His prediction was an unlikely direct hit. To know something in advance is to know something is being planned. Illarionov clearly predicted the most significant event of the following year. He also implied this event was planned to distract the West from Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. And this prediction fits perfectly with the analysis of Lt. Col. Viktor Kalashnikov, a resident of Moscow, who warned of Russia deploying “terrorist armies” in 2013. The fact is, people in Moscow knew what was coming. And why wouldn’t they? It takes enormous resources and real planning to move millions of people from the Middle East to the heart of Europe. A lot of people had to know in advance, if only to set up the needed transport system.

 

INSIGHTS OF A ROMANIAN GENERAL

 

Those who have lived under communist regimes, who were educated as strategists, are in a better position to properly evaluate recent events than their West European counterparts. During an August 2015 Adevarul Live television discussion, retired Army General Constantin Degeratu referred to the European refugee crisis as a “hybrid war” of aggression, conjured out of the Middle East by Russia. Superficially, the refugee crisis “completely covered the problem of the Russian aggression against Ukraine,” Degeratu noted. He then stated that the whole refugee operation was “well organized.” The general added, “Look at the people who are coming. They are better dressed and better fed than 10 to 15 percent of Romania’s population. This is a planned invasion, it doesn’t have a direct cause in the Middle East….” He then pointed out the logistical difficulties involved in moving millions of people hundreds or thousands of miles. “If somebody is to come from Afghanistan with a trolley to the border of Macedonia, this requires logistics.”21

 

As if to clarify Kalashnikov’s earlier point about Hungary, Degeratu pointed to a curious anomaly. “It is said that this threefold increase in the number of refugees compared to the numbers of last summer is taking everyone by surprise. But [this] occurred a week after Hungary completed the building of [a large border] fence. Doesn’t it seem interesting to you that first the fence was built and afterwards this migration started, in that particular area?”22

 

Retired Army General Alexandru Grumaz was also on the program. He agreed that the migration was “well supported.” He added that Turkey also had an interest in pushing the refugees along, toward Europe. It was, said Grumaz, a crisis of European institutions. Degeratu said the problem of the refugee invasion could not be solved. Why? “Because it is managed by Russia and thus it is meant not to be solved, but to be maintained.” The general then said, “Russia’s interest is to maintain this crisis.”

 

“It is clear,” said Degeratu, “that if the European Union doesn’t want to live the nightmare … which says that in the years 2030 to 2040 more than 60 percent of the active EU population will be Muslim … then the European countries should decide if they want to survive as a civilization or not.” According to Degeratu’s strategic assessment, “We have to understand that we are the target of a war, and we may call it hybrid, or an asymmetrical war, but this migrant wave is a consequence of it.” He then summarized the perilous cost of the migrants for Europe, noting, “the cost for each one of these people is three times the minimum retirement pension in Romania!”23

 

Surely, said Degeratu, “The political attitude [in Europe] with regard to this situation needs to change. So far, it’s been peace-time politics. Now we are the target of an aggression. Border control is absolutely mandatory.”

 

According to Prof. Przemysław Żurawski vel Grajewski, who was asked by Dr. Cernea to comment on Gen. Degeratu’s assessments, “The opinions of Gen. Degeratu are fully justified and I would subscribe [to] each of his statements….” Prof. Żurawski is one of Poland’s best political analysts. He teaches social science at the University of Łódz and the National School of Public Administration, serving in the National Council for Development, an advisory board to President Andrzej Duda. He is also a counselor to the current Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs, Jacek Czaputowicz. According to Prof. Żurawski, the Russians are not responsible for all the refugees who have flooded into Europe, but it is certain “they did their best to make [the problem] larger … to confuse the political scene in European countries … as much as they can. Russia is the main ally of Assad and Iran….” These allies of Russia, he said, have maximized “the scale of the refugees.” Prof. Żurawski also pointed to “the semi-criminal FSB/local mafias and hybrid structures in Bosnia and Herzegovina.” These also played a role in moving refugees through the Balkans into the heart of Europe. “The conclusion is,” he said, “that Russia had instruments to maximize the troubles” despite Europe’s inability to find “a smoking gun.”24

 

Prof. Żurawski also noted that, “Anti-immigrant parties in the West are usually pro-Russian (Front National, AfD); so deepening the crisis helps Russia’s followers in the West.” This point should not be overlooked. (Kalashnikov hinted at this factor with reference to Hungary more than a year before the refugee crisis began.) Here the manipulation of the European right that takes center stage. Moscow has every reason to believe the European anti-immigrant parties will gain political traction as the refugee crisis intensifies. Moscow, therefore, has reason to invest in the European right. Simultaneously, Moscow also uses its agents on the European left. These agents intensify the crisis through “politically correct” policies. As the left drives the crisis forward, the right opposition grows and seeks ready allies – and is driven into Moscow’s open arms.

 

This process may already be underway in Hungary where Prime Minister Viktor Orban has shifted toward Moscow.25 The Chief of the Hungarian General Staff, Gen. Tibor Benkő, says that Hungary does not have to buy equipment exclusively from NATO countries. Russia is currently modernizing Hungarian Mi-24 and Mi-17 helicopters for $64 million.26 Perhaps even more alarming is Prime Minister Orban’s tolerance with regard to Russian infiltration of the Hungarian right. Former Hungarian anti-communists are now celebrating Soviet cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin, linking arms with Russian officials. According to authors Péter Krekó and Lóránt Győri, Russia has invested political capital in “hate groups in Central Europe,” with financial ties “to violent organizations in Central and Eastern Europe as well….”27 This is a conscious strategy:

 

In Moscow’s toolkit of active measures and hybrid warfare, the boundaries between violent and nonviolent tools are increasingly blurry. And this process is two-directional: not only can information be weaponized; violent organizations can be used as soft-power tools. The Kremlin is highly effective at infiltrating fringe parties and paramilitary organizations in Central Europe. They are easy to purchase or control, as these extremist groups tend to be small and easily manipulated.28

 

What is the ultimate strategic value of the infiltration and manipulation of fringe parties and paramilitary groups? Keeping this question in mind, when we look at the present-day chaos in the Middle East, Russia’s past support for terrorist organizations of every kind becomes less and less of a riddle.

 

The former Romanian Minister for Communications and Information,29 Marius Bostan, was asked by Dr. Cernea if he agreed with Gen. Degeratu’s remarks. Bostan replied, “From the perspective of my own experience in public service and politics, I do agree with Gen. Degeratu’s opinion that Russia is likely to have been involved in the migrant crisis and … it should be regarded as a hybrid war operation against the West.” Bostan emphasized that “a very important component of the hybrid war is the cultural dimension.” Here the Internet plays a key role. The Russian long-term investment in “propaganda, disinformation, opinion and behavior-shaping” cannot be underestimated. A short-term view would be a mistake. Bostan explained,

 

There is something about the Russian strategy that is difficult to explain to our Western allies. It’s the fact that Russia usually acts on both sides of a (real or manufactured) conflict. For instance, on [the] Internet we notice that Russian propaganda, disinformation or trolling activity on forums and social networks typically carry messages meant to create/amplify conflicts between different ethnic or religious groups – Romanians versus Hungarians, Poles versus Ukrainians, Christians versus Jews, etc. And they encourage at the same time groups with opposed views – far left anti-market tendencies [versus] libertarian ones, LGBT-rights [versus] conservative Christian activism, open-border multiculturalism [versus] anti-immigration movements, etc. Thus, Russia is able to provoke conflicts and crises, and to influence the public agenda of the countries it targets for subversion.

 

This ambivalence may seem paradoxical to Western minds, used to a binary logic according to which something cannot be black and white at the same time. Well, Russians are not Westerners. In the East, black and white may be defined in many different ways. Moreover, the Russian leaders still function according to a mentality shaped by Marxist dialectics, which says that progress results from the constant struggle between contrary elements.

 

It looks like the West is only now discovering that, for instance, Russian internet trolls simultaneously support a certain cause and its contrary.30

 

Bostan has laid out one of Russia’s key strategies. He says this kind of strategy is “difficult” for the West to understand. As Rudyard Kipling expressed it, “East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet.” At some point in the future, however, the West must learn to appreciate Russia’s “scissors strategy” – “that Russia usually acts on both sides of a … conflict.” If there is one central lesson to be drawn from this study, Bostan has underscored it.

 

In their Atlantic Council article, “From Russia with Hate,” Péter Krekó and Lóránt Győri explain how Polish counterintelligence “is currently investigating Mateusz Piskorski, the leader of the Polish leftist party … as well as former activists of the far-right Polish Congress of the New Right (KNP) on charges of espionage on behalf of Russia.”31 Here is the classic Russian “scissors strategy” at work If the refugee crisis is part of a Russian scissors strategy, how does Russia benefit? First, political tensions are intensified between the European right and left; second, the right can be pushed toward Moscow by a variety of mechanisms; third, a general weakening of NATO develops under a scenario of “divide and conquer”; fourth, a general demoralization and loss of belief in existing institutions naturally follows.

 

In his interview with Epoch Times in November 2015, General Degeratu showed the depth of this understanding when he said we “should see who takes profit” from the refugee crisis. “Well,” he explained, the Russians profited, and many cracks appeared in NATO. “We see how ‘united’ Europe has been,” Degeratu added. “Full unity! There have been 50 voices in our European ‘unity.’”32

 

Those who have set up the exercise have understood all our weaknesses and have exploited them properly. What else have they obtained … does anyone still speak about the Ukrainian crisis? Not anymore. There are also 1 million – in fact, 800,000 – refugees, from Eastern Ukraine and Crimea, most of them from Donbass. Eight hundred thousand. There are 8,000 dead. Around 2,000 children and pregnant women have died in this crisis. We almost haven’t seen them on the (TV) screen, there have been no gatherings, there was no session of the Romanian Parliament….33

 

Degeratu is extraordinarily perceptive, and other experts agree with his assessment that Russia is waging a hybrid war against Europe. “Maybe some of us are too militarily-minded and ask questions that shouldn’t be asked,” said Degeratu.

 

DIRECT TESTIMONY FROM A SYRIAN GENERAL ON RUSSIA’S DOUBLE GAME

 

There is a stunning revelation in the fragment of a September 2015 interview given to Witold Gadowski by Syrian Brigadier General Ahmad Aljjdeaa, a soldier with thirty years of experience in the Syrian Army who is also the deputy minister of defense in the Syrian government-in-exile. According to Gen. Aljjdeaa, “Russian officers are constantly present in the branches of the Syrian army supporting the regime of Bashar Assad….”

 

Then he added, “Russia is interested in confusion in Syria. There are also four military training centers in Russia, in which fanatics are trained, who then fill the ranks of the Islamic State troops (ISIS). Among the trained are also Chechens.”34

 

Related to this, another curious headline reads: “In retreating from Iraq, ISIS terrorists

 

lost their Russian passports.”35  The facts are reported as follows: “The Iraqi military, who at the end of last week occupied the university building previously held by ISIS in the city of Mosul, displayed what was found in evidence as the identification papers of Islamic State terrorists, which mostly turned out to be Russian.”36

 

Again, it is a case of the “scissors strategy.” Moscow has perfected the fine art of stage-managing fake wars and phony splits with false fronts made up of “useful idiots.”37 Russia’s deployment of terrorist and counter-terrorist forces in Syria and Iraq should surprise no one. This procedure was used during the Soviet-Afghan War in the 1980s and again during the recent wars in Chechnya.38

 

At this juncture it may be useful to recite a bit of history. In July 2005 the Russian KGB/FSB defector Alexander Litvinenko told the Polish newspaper Rzeczpospolita that Ayman al-Zawahiri (then Al-Qaeda’s second in command) was trained by the FSB in Dagestan in 1997. According to the former KGB foreign intelligence officer Konstantin Preobrazhensky, Litvinenko “was responsible for securing the secrecy of al-Zawahiri’s arrival in Russia … in 1996-1997.”39

 

The Romanian intelligence defector, Lt. Gen. Ion Mahai Pacepa, has described Moscow’s use of Arab terrorist organizations throughout the Cold War in his books.40 We know that Russia stands firmly behind the Islamic terror regime in Tehran. Researcher Antero Leitzinger explained, “Modern terrorism was born within a year, 1967-68. International socialists (communists) started the fashion all over the world simultaneously, which should make us suspicious about the common roots. National socialists followed suit, turning Marxists of Muslim origin into Islamists of Marxist origin.”41

 

Among the closest associates of Khomeini, there were many Communists who had conveniently grown beards. Mustafa Ali Chamran had studied in California and Egypt before he founded a Red Shi’ite secret society. His pupils included later foreign minister Ibrahim Yazdi, oil minister Mohammed Gharazi, and Lebanese fellow student in Berkeley University, Hussein Shaikh al-Islam, who led the occupation of the US Embassy in Tehran. This occupation, shortly before the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, focused Iranian radicalism into anti-Americanism…. Mohammed Beheshti, whose death at a bombing on June 28th, 1981, remained a mystery, had resided in East Germany. Khomeini’s early companion and foreign minister, Sadegh Ghotbzadeh had successfully accommodated with the new regime. Both Ghotbzadeh and Chamran had received Palestinian terrorist training. As a student in the USA, Ghotbzadeh had been recruited by the [Soviet] GRU.42

 

With regard to the Soviet-Afghan War, Leitzinger explained that Soviet Military Intelligence (GRU) had developed special capabilities by the late 1980s, especially “how to manipulate Islamists and to make Communists (of the Khalq faction) to grow beards and join their declared enemies.” According to Leitzinger, “This ‘Khalq strategy” provided a successful alternative to the more orthodox “Parcham strategy” that relied on ideologically less unholy alliances.”43

 

Leitzinger argued that the Russian secret services “gained a tight hold on international terrorism, and [especially] on Islamism” in the 1990s. The terrorist is, in essence, a special kind of agent provocateur. A Western analyst finds it difficult to see the Afghan-Soviet War or the first and second Chechen Wars as utilizing provocation techniques on a broad scale. Former CIA official T.H. Bagley and KGB defector Peter Deriabin noted, “Soviet provocation … remains little understood in the West. People safe in a democratic system may find it difficult to conceive that rulers would systematically use such hostile techniques against their own subjects.”44

 

If Moscow’s wars in Afghanistan and Chechnya were built around terrorist provocations, and the objective was to radicalize and infiltrate Islam, and reorient Islam against the West, then the wars in Afghanistan and Chechnya appear in a more intelligible light. The Soviet Union did not invade Afghanistan for conventional reasons, or to attain classical military control.

 

With the advent of the refugee crisis in Europe, with the likelihood of thousands of terrorists settled within a mass of protected Muslim refugees, the least sign of Russian involvement – or the involvement of Russia’s Islamist surrogates – ought to inspire a shockwave of alarm through Europe’s security establishment. Given the history of Moscow’s infiltration of Islam, and the mounting evidence of Russia’s double game, the Kremlin would be the most natural suspect in any close study of the refugee crisis. Arguably, any other focus would be irresponsible.

 

As reported by the BBC, U.S. Gen. Philip Breedlove, the senior NATO commander in Europe, said that Russia and Syria were “deliberately weaponizing migration in an attempt to overwhelm European structures and break European resolve.” He cited Russia’s use of barrel bombs against Syrian civilians. What was the purpose of such indiscriminate attacks? The purpose was, he said, to “get them [masses of people] on the road” to Europe.45

 

Masses of homeless people, adhering to an alien religion, is one problem for Europe. Terrorism is yet another. Since the refugee crisis began Europe has been hit with an unprecedented wave of terrorist attacks (not to mention rapes and robberies). First came the Paris killings of November 2015, then the Brussels bombings of March 2016, then the Nice truck attack and the Normandy church attack of July 2016. Then there was the string of Islamic stabbings across Europe.46

 

Some of our sources (quoted above) have claimed that modern terrorism was introduced to the Muslims by the communist bloc half a century ago. This point must not be forgotten when evaluating the left’s strange love affair with Islam. “From the very beginning,” said former KGB Lt. Col. Konstantin Preobrazhensky, “the so-called Bolsheviks, or communists, were considering Muslims as the reserve [army], as the human resource for the world revolution. Not all … people know that the second appeal by Lenin, after the Great October Socialist Revolution in 1917, was addressed to Muslim toilers….” Preobrazhensky continued:

 

At that time Islam was the religion of the oppressed … of the people colonized by the West. As Lenin said by the time of the … Communist International, ‘The West is existing at the expense of the East.’ Even now we can hear such conclusions, such ideas. And as soon as the Russian Revolution took place, Russian Muslims immediately supported it, so that the communist Muslim military organizations were formed. The Muslim communists were dethroning the local bourgeois Muslim governments which appeared in the Russian Empire47.

 

MUSLIM REFUGEES TO EUROPE: A RUSSIAN POLICY

 

According to Antoni Rybczynski, “The migratory crisis in Europe is largely a work of Russian policy….” He further stated, “Already … when nobody expected Russian raids in Syria, Vladimir Putin warned that Europe would face the great problems associated with the influx of immigrants.” In this way Moscow supported Assad while undermining Europe.48

 

Another Niezalezna.pl headline underscores this same idea: “Putin’s diabolical game, Exporting Muslim immigrants to Europe.” The article begins, “The Norwegian authorities believe that the refugees’ invasion of their country is a Russian provocation.”49

 

In October 2015 the Czech Minister of Defense, Martin Stropnicky, suggested that Russia was possibly financing the transportation of refugees to Europe. “Although I do not have 100 percent proof of this information,” he said, “I cannot discount it either.”50 Given all we know, his surmise is logical. It is sensible. Why wouldn’t Russia – which has armed Islamic terrorists throughout Asia – arm Islamic terrorists in Germany, Britain, France or Sweden?

 

According to a member of the Estonian National Defense League, Ants Laaneots, “Putin’s aim is the disintegration of the European Union and NATO, if possible.” Russia, he added, is promoting “Euroscepticism.”51 More likely, Russia’s strategy includes many subtle and indirect objectives. As with the work of the late Mohammad Fahim in Afghanistan, Russia can take over a NATO-defended country through the work of an enterprising criminal. Russia can thereby paralyze the heart of Afghanistan or the heart of Europe in a way that mocks European compassion.

 

The Chairman of the Supreme Council of Lithuania, Vytautas Landsbergis, made an observation on 15 September 2015 about the refugee crisis almost identical to others we have seen:

 

I was thinking who had to profit, and I know now. In the current crisis, the whole attention is focused on Europe. Nobody is speaking of Ukraine any more, although there are almost 2 million refugees there as well. Putin has chased them away, and nobody is proposing them to go where life is better….52

 

According to Landsbergis, the current migration crisis is a threat to European civilization.

 

Europe has met a big danger for its own system, even for its own civilization. The Germans earlier had illusions, that they would manage to integrate a million Turks, that the Turks would become Germans and there would be no problem. It didn’t work. Ghettos were created, a state within the state, and these are big problems….53

 

The Ukrainian MP, Anton Gerashchenko, speaking on TV Channel News One, stated:

 

The crisis of migrants in Europe arose because of Putin. The war in Syria began in 2011, but migrants flooded [Europe] like a large river in the spring of 2015. Russia made a decision after Europe imposed economic sanctions on Russia: ‘Let’s create problems for them.” They created a problem: $1,000 was allocated for the head of [each] refugee who will be taken from Syria to Europe. A million refugees are a billion dollars. This is nothing to Putin….54

 

The cost to Europe, however, is much more than a $1 billion. Gerashchenko added that an atmosphere of xenophobia has been created in Europe along with the growing influence of various nationalist parties, which are known for their favorable position toward Putin’s Russia.

 

CONCLUSION

 

Whatever the causes of the Refugee crisis, Moscow’s strategists have taken full advantage of the situation. Those who know Russian policy best, who are geographically further east, know that Russia has something to gain. If a “smoking gun” is absent, in a strict sense, there is yet a loaded gun. One might say this gun is pointed at the heart of Europe.

 

With regard to proof, the strategist does not wear a white lab coat or follow some academic procedure to understand the world. He is not a prosecuting attorney who has to prove his case in a court of law. He is engaged in “a duel on an extensive scale” – which was Carl von Clausewitz’s famous definition of war. If military and political leaders only acted on the basis of scientific proof – or rely on proofs used to convince a jury – they would not be able to act at all. The soldier and the stateman exercise judgment on a more commonsense level.

 

Consider the following analogy: If it is 2 December 1941 and an American plane spots six Japanese aircraft carriers moving east between Alaska and Midway Island, a sensible strategist would assume that the Japanese were intending to attack the U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor. The sensible strategist would be quite foolish to declare that “there was no proof” of a Japanese intention to attack. It would be pedantic, under the circumstances, to say there was “no smoking gun.” Strategy dictates an entirely different epistemology. The reported movement of the Japanese aircraft carriers would constitute a loaded gun, aimed at the U.S. Pacific Fleet. A responsible military leader does not wait for that gun to be fired. An American admiral, drawing the proper inferences, would know exactly what to do. He would alert the fleet at Pearl Harbor and take countermeasures. He would know, as one who directs fleets, that every enemy move speaks to intention. That must be the foundation of his certitude, of his practical knowledge.

 

In terms of the Muslim refugee crisis in Europe: reports of ISIS training camps in Russia, reports of GRU/SVR and Russian Mafia assistance to a massive influx of refugees, reports of Russian infiltration of terrorist organizations throughout the Muslim world, etc., constitute a loaded gun. We must judge these reports as strategists – not as social scientists or academics. This must be the foundation of a new strategic methodology for the Muslim Refugee problem. Clearly, this is not simply about Islam. Russian involvement is indicated. Russian strategy must be understood as part of a greater strategic whole in order to properly assess the larger situation.

 

NOTES

 

1 http://www.fronda.pl/a/gadowski-dla-frondapl-agenci-panstwa-islamskiego-wsrod-imigrantowf,57134.html?part=1

 

2 Ibid.

 

3 http://www.vocativ.com/news/224151/syria-government-assad-kills-more-civilians-than-isis/index.html

 

http://www.vocativ.com/news/247479/russian-airstrikes-killed-more-syrian-civilians-than-isis-fighters/

 

5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_military_intervention_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War

 

6 http://ileanajohnson.com/2015/12/witold-gadowski-polish-journalist-talks-to-fronda-pl-about-syrian-refugees/

 

7 http://www.businessinsider.com/organized-crime-is-now-a-major-element-of-russia-statecraft-2015-10

 

8 http://ileanajohnson.com/2015/12/witold-gadowski-polish-journalist-talks-to-fronda-pl-about-syrian-refugees/

 

9 https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2011/02/usegypt_relations_under_attack_1.html#ixzz58Jw FkwoF

 

10 https://www.forbes.com/sites/richardminiter/2011/08/18/the-exciting-notion-of-arab-spring-is-a-jedi-mind-trick/#2ab603254ce7

 

11 Ibid.

 

12 The former intelligence official was interviewed by J.R. Nyquist on condition of anonymity.

 

13 Katehon’s president is Konstantin Malofeev, a Russian oligarch with close ties to Aleksandr Dugin, previously the co-founder of the National Bolshevist movement (along with Eduard Limonov). This was a movement which combined nationalism and communism (i.e., a Red-Brown prototype movement). More recently Dugin changed his ideological formula, mixing pan-European or Eurasianist ideas with nihilistic metaphysics in order to justify a worldwide anti-U.S. alliance between traditionalist and Marxists. All this is interspersed with a thinly disguised Lenin-style anti-capitalist millenarianism which seeks to hasten the “end times” with the destruction of Carthage (i.e., the United States). Dugin’s pretense at Orthodox Christianity should not be taken any more seriously than his nationalist pretenses. His entire ideology is an arcane justification for a renewed USSR/Third Rome. His enemies are the old enemies of the USSR. His friends are the old friends of the USSR. Dugin’s philosophic sophistication is not to be taken seriously, though his past fascination with Aleister Crowley’s black magic craves closer investigation. Of course, Dugin’s flirtation with esoteric ideas has helped to win adherents on the alt-right, particularly among neo-pagans, occultists and Sufis. His supposed positive attitude toward traditional Christianity leads to the conclusion that he is consciously toying with dialectically opposite theologies and ideologies. Using conspiracy theory as a tool to advance his anti-U.S. agenda, Dugin also pretends to support President Donald Trump, making English language broadcasts praising Trump for stopping globalism and “the expansion of liberal ideology.” Dugin also praises Alex Jones and Infowars. To watch Dugin’s English language broadcasts, see – “The Mystic Shaping Russia’s Future and Bringing Back the Dark Ages, https://godsandradicals.org/2017/03/28/the-mystic-shaping-russias-future-and-ending-the-modern-era/. See also, http://www.4pt.su/en/content/who-aleksandr-dugin and https://www.nationalreview.com/2014/06/dugins-evil-theology-robert-zubrin/.

 

14 http://katehon.com/article/tragic-loss-red-pasha

 

15 http://www.trevorloudon.com/2013/06/exclusive-part-2-former-kgb-colonel-victor-kalashnikov-on-the-dangers-of-putin-worship-russias-anti-western-alliance-with-islam-israel-syria-iran-and-the-kremlins-grand-strateg/

 

16 Ibid.

 

17 http://conservativeread.com/former-kgbs-victor-kalashnikov-dangers-of-putin-worship-russias-islamist-alliance-plans-to-destroy-nato/

 

18 http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2013/07/were-911-terror-attacks-false-flag.html

 

19 https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=27&v=F6vj0z_oZIs – at about 15 minutes into the interview.

20 Ibid. 

21 http://adevarul.ro/international/europa/adevarul-live-generalul-degeratu-despre-criza-imigrantilor-rusia-cea-genereaza-criza-acestei-migratii-excesive-1_55e05dbdf5eaafab2c014a6e/index.html

 

22 Ibid.

 

23 Ibid.

 

 24 From Żurawski’s written reply to Dr. Cernea.

 

25 newsweek.com/vladimir-putin-meets-hungary-viktor-orban-agenda-gas-soviet-sanctions-551263

 

26 http://www.defence24.pl/geopolityka/wegry-sie-zbroja-orban-kupi-sprzet-w-rosji

 

27 http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/component/content/article?id=35796:from-russia-with-hate-the-kremlin-s-support-for-violent-extremism-in-central-europe

 

28 Ibid.

 

29 Bostan was minister from Nov. 2015 to July 2016.

 

30 Written response to inquiry of former Communications and Information Minister Marius Bostan to Dr. Cernea, dated 3 March 2018.

 

31 atlanticcouncil.org/component/content/article?id=35796:from-russia-with-hate-the-kremlin-s-support-for-violent-extremism-in-central-europe

 

32 http://epochtimes-romania.com/video/constantin-degeratu-criza-refugiatilor-a-fost-o-operatiune-organizata—1099

 

33 Ibid.

 

34 https://wpolityce.pl/swiat/260088-syryjski-general-oskarza-w-rosji-szkoleni-sa-fanatycy-ktorzy-potem-zasilaja-szeregi-panstwa-islamskiego

 

35 org/wycofujac-sie-iraku-bojowcy-isis-zgubili-swe-rosyjskie-paszporty/

 

36 Ibid.

 

37 See, especially,Yao Ming-le, The Conspiracy and Death of Lin Biao (1983). There it is explained how Gen. Lin Biao secretly prepared to wage a phony war with the Soviet Union in 1971.

 

38 See, especially, Bearden and Risen, The Main Enemy: The Inside Story of the CIA’s Final Showdown with the KGB (New York: Random House, 2003), p. 233.

 

39 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Litvinenko#cite_note-69

 

40 Ronald Rychlak and Ion Mihai Pacepa, Disinformation: Former Spry Chief Reveals Secret Strategies for Undermining Freedom, Attacking Religion, and Promoting Terrorism (WND Books, 2013). See also, Pacepa, Red Horizons: The True Story of Nicolae and Eana Ceausescus’ Crimes, Lifestyle, and Corruption (1990).

 

41 See also Antero Leitzinger’s article in the The Eurasian Politician – Issue 5 (April-September 2002), “The Roots of Islamic Terrorism,” http://users.jyu.fi/~aphamala/pe/issue5/roots.htm

 

42 In this matter Leitzinger offers citations from the following sources: Livingston & Halevy, Inside the PLO (USA, 1990), p. 153-154; and Kuzichkin, Inside the KGB – Myth and Reality (Frome, 1990), p. 302.

 

43 eitzinger referenced Finnish researcher Anssi Kullberg’s master’s thesis on Russian geopolitics focusing on the Islamic Renaissance Party founded in Astrakhan in June 1990, “under KGB surveillance.” Kullberg

 

44 Deriabin and Bagley, KGB: Masters of the Soviet Union (New York, 1990), p. 252.

 

45 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35706238

 

46 http://time.com/4607481/europe-terrorism-timeline-berlin-paris-nice-brussels/

 

47 Konstantin Preobrazhensky: “How the Russian Communists Run Islam.” https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Preobrazhensky+Konstantin+How+the+Russian+Communists+r un+Islamic+Terrorism+https%3a%2f%2fwww.youtube.com%2fwatch%3fv%3d0AqMCLqTRFo&PC=ACTS &refig=ebf0ef63163f4c948bcf96c60aeb434a&ru=%2fsearch%3fq%3dPreobrazhensky%2bKonstantin%2 bHow%2bthe%2bRussian%2bCommunists%2brun%2bIslamic%2bTerrorism%2bhttps%253A%252F%252 Fwww.youtube.com%252Fwatch%253Fv%253D0AqMCLqTRFo%26FORM%3dEDGNCT%26PC%3dACTS% 26refig%3debf0ef63163f4c948bcf96c60aeb434a&view=detail&mmscn=vwrc&mid=19EC1DC31D497F37 378719EC1DC31D497F373787&FORM=WRVORC

 

48 http://niezalezna.pl/77702-jak-putin-i-asad-produkuja-uchodzcow-rosjanie-stosuja-taktyke-z-wojny-czeczenskiej

 

49 http://niezalezna.pl/73114-diabelska-gra-putina-rosja-eksportuje-islamskich-imigrantow-do-europy

 

50 http://www.uawire.org/news/czech-minister-of-defense-it-is-possible-that-russia-is-financing-the-influx-of-refugees-to-europe

 

51 http://www.uawire.org/news/estonian-politician-russia-uses-the-migration-crisis-as-part-of-its-hybrid-war#

 

52 http://zw.lt/litwa/landsbergis-o-kryzysie-z-uchodzcami-winna-jest-rosja/

 

53 Ibid.

 

54 https://newsone.ua/news/politics/gerashhenko-krizis-migrantov-dlya-evropy-pridumal-putin.html

 

________________

Center for Security Policy HOMEPAGE

 

About CSP

 

The Center for Security Policy was founded in July 1988 by 30 national security policy practitioners united by an overarching goal – to perpetuate the time-tested policy Ronald Reagan used to such transformative effect during his presidency: “Peace through Strength.” Led by Frank Gaffney, a former Reagan Defense Department official and aide to Senators Henry “Scoop” Jackson and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Tower, they founded a non-partisan, educational public policy organization with a single, overarching mission: secure freedom.

 

“What an  exemplary organization you are — devoting yourselves to the pursuit of peace and national security.  I can think of no loftier purpose or goal.”  — 1995 letter from President Ronald Reagan to the Center for Security Policy

 

The Center has diligently advanced that goal ever since through a combination of: cutting-edge public policy research; the skillful and evolving use of multi-media platforms for outreach to – and impact with – the nation’s leadership and people; and, most uniquely, the creation and direction of coalitions to undertake effective advocacy.

 

In its early days, the Center for Security Policy became famous for  READ THE REST

 

Open a Criminal Investigation of Barack Hussein Obama


Cliff Kincaid writes about the stealth threat of Communism still pervasive in America and gives a huge amount of credit to Barack Hussein Obama for this stealth infusion.

 

Kincaid mentions Sebastian Gorka as a person exposing Communism intrusion from China and the infusion of Stealth Islamic jihadism in the USA. But Kincaid criticizes Gorka for not including Russia (former USSR) in this Marxist makeover being secretly paved into the American consciousness.

 

I’m a Gorka fan so I not really hip to criticizing him. I would be more inclined to ask Gorka to add the Russian influence to the other outside anti-American influences. I have no doubt Gorka would side with that.

 

JRH 10/17/17

Please Support NCCR

****************

Open a Criminal Investigation of Barack Hussein Obama

 

By Cliff Kincaid

October 16th, 2017

America’s Survival

 

Investigate Obama

 

It’s suddenly big news that there are perverts in Hollywood. The really big news is that former President Barack Hussein Obama’s communist and terrorist-support network remains a state secret. Attorney General Jeff Sessions won’t touch it.

 

Until we come to grips with Obama, our first Marxist president with radical Muslim sympathies, we are adrift as a nation. He ran for office as a committed Christian,” a monumental deception to conceal his record of service to the communist cause, Muslim background, and grooming by suspected Soviet espionage agent Frank Marshall Davis.

 

Obama Committed Christian Lie

 

As the world marks the 100th anniversary of the 1917 Russian revolution, America should take note of our own communist revolution – the eight years of the Obama presidency and his leadership of the global anti-Trump “resistance.”

 

WND story says former Trump White House aide Sebastian Gorka believes radical Islamic jihadists, China and radical leftists pose the greatest threats to U.S. national security, but that “they will be defeated by President Trump and his supporters who are restoring America’s global dominance and reclaiming the country’s culture.”

 

Based on the record so far, this is as likely as Hollywood coming completely clean about Harvey Weinstein’s perversities.

 

Russia is not even on the list of Gorka’s top three threats! Yet Russia is behind the Jihadists, is in an alliance with Red China, and still backs the radical leftists.

 

Gorka tells WND, “The immediate term threat is the Shia-jihadis – this is Iran, this is the Republican Guard, Hezbollah. If they get nuclear weapons, that’s a game changer and that’s why it’s so important the president decertified the Iran deal.”

 

Yet, Iran’s nuclear weapons program is made possible by Russia. Why no mention of that? And why didn’t Trump cancel the Iran deal as he promised to do?

 

In the first place, Obama should have been impeached. Under United Nations auspices, he ordered the bombing of Libya, in order to depose a ruler, Gadhafi, who had given up his weapons of mass destruction and was fighting al Qaeda. The massacre of Americans in Benghazi by Jihadists resulted from this illegal and unconstitutional war. All of this benefited the Muslim Brotherhood. Indeed, Obama issued a secret 2011 Presidential Study Directive-11, or PSD-11, supporting this radical Islamist group throughout the Middle East.

 

National security reporter Bill Gertz said, “The directive, according to officials familiar with its contents, outlined how the administration would seek to support the Muslim Brotherhood around the world despite the Islamist supremacist organization providing the ideological underpinning for jihadist terrorism for both al Qaeda and its successor, the Islamic State.”

 

PSD-11, which is still secret, should be released by the Trump Administration and declared exhibit number one in a criminal investigation of Barack Hussein Obama.

 

Trump was supposed to turn things around. In Afghanistan, Gorka tells WND that Trump’s speech sending more American soldiers to their deaths in an endless conflict didn’t use the words “radical Islamic terrorism.” He was upset about that omission. But Trump also didn’t mention Russia’s role in sending arms to a Taliban faction killing our troops.

 

This is what we called the Red Jihad, a book quoting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as saying that Soviet/Russian support for international terrorism made radical Islam into the threat it is today. He explains that, “without the support offered by the Soviet bloc and the Arab world, international terrorism would revert to its earlier, localized manifestations before the 1960s and would hardly dominate the global scene.”

 

If you want to defeat radical Islam, engineer regime change in Russia, which is still the global center of revolutionary violence against America.

 

Domestically, Sebastian Gorka mentions in the WND interview the influence of Obama associates Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn in academia, but ignores how their communist terrorist networks spawned the Obama candidacy and presidency. These networks, nurtured even today by Bill Ayers in his new book, Demand the Impossible: A Radical Manifesto, are promising an uprising of some sort on November 4. The Refuse Fascism group, which is behind the November 4 protests, is a front of the Revolutionary Communist Party and its founder, former Ayers and Dohrn associate Bob Avakian.

 

As we document in Comrade Obama Unmasked, Obama supported America’s enemies at every opportunity, including the communist regime in Cuba, the communists running South Africa, and even the FARC narco-terrorists in Colombia.

 

Obama Questionable Christian

 

But he stands out during his eight years in office as the real Russian agent, who was passive when Russia invaded Ukraine and Syria, gave Russia a nuclear weapons advantage over the U.S., and awarded the Russians special trading privileges. Working with Russia, he conceived the Iran nuclear deal.

 

However, on his way out the door, in a classic Marxist dialectical maneuver, his CIA director John Brennan launched an investigation of President Trump as a Russia agent. It was a stroke of genius that put Trump on the defensive, gave the liberal news media months of joy, and resulted in multiple Russia-gate investigations, including by a former FBI director determined to get Trump.

 

On the 100th anniversary of the Virgin Mary Fatima revelations about Russia’s threat to world peace, we also learn from Dr. Paul Kengor’s new book that the Soviets were behind the May 13, 1981, attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II.  The book, A Pope and a President: John Paul II, Ronald Reagan, and the Extraordinary Untold Story of the 20th Century, says Reagan’s CIA director Bill Casey confirmed the Soviet role, in the face of official CIA resistance to the finding.

 

Until the reality of Obama’s communist support is examined and the secret role of Russia in global conflict exposed, the former president and America’s enemies will have the upper hand.

 

But Gorka and Trump seem clueless. “China has the most leverage to deal with North Korea,” Gorka told WND. “And the fact that the president and Ambassador Haley at the U.N. have managed to convince China that even if you’re in a competition with us, you will not profit by having a nuclear war on your border and they joined us with Russia – it’s a big deal – in the tightest sanctions package against North Korea in history, that tells you how big a problem North Korea is. China may be our long-term enemy, but they don’t [want] a war in their back doorstep either.”

 

Does he really think another in an endless series of U.N. resolutions will make any difference? The U.N. is another communist front, designed by a Russian agent working in our State Department by the name of Alger Hiss. Have we forgotten?

 

Working through the U.N. is a dangerous dead end.

 

Our book The Sword of Revolution conclusively demonstrates that the “Sino-Soviet split” was a fraud. What’s more, the “collapse” of Red Russia was itself a fraud, too. Together, China and Russia, combined with Obama’s inaction during his two terms, have made a nuclear North Korea a reality.

 

What’s more, China is still communist. An article in China Daily, entitled, “Adapting Marxism called crucial,” explains how Marxism is guiding the country’s future. Here’s a quote:

 

President Xi Jinping, also general secretary of the Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee… said that as a party upholding Marxism, the CPC should make sure its theories keep up with the times. Drifting away from or betraying Marxism will lead to the Party’s losing its soul and direction as it moves forward, Xi added. Marxism is unsurpassed in achieving great heights and having a huge influence, he said.

 

The reliance on China to deal with its nuclear client, North Korea, is another dead end.

 

The key failure involves the inability or unwillingness to investigate Obama’s global network and what his anti-American policies were designed to do.

 

In terms of the threat within, consider that the FBI website still features wanted posters of two fugitives: Donna Borup and Elizabeth Anna Duke, both members of the May 19th Communist Organization.

 

Filmmaker Joel Gilbert, a speaker at our upcoming November 10 National conference on Obamunism, has cited evidence that Obama was a member or supporter of the May 19th Communist Organization, an above ground support group for the Weather Underground based in New York City from 1978-1985.

 

He notes that the May 19 Communist Organization was described by Obama pal and former communist terrorist Bill Ayers as providing “a sea for the guerillas to swim in.”

 

Some May 19 members committed acts of violence and terrorism, such as the 1981 Nanuet Brinks robbery and murders, the bombing of South African offices in 1981, and the U.S. Capital bombing in 1983, notes Gilbert. He adds, “I spoke with a former FBI informant who told me the May 19th Communist Organization had a weapons training camp in the Catskill Mountains, run by former Black Panthers. In addition, some May 19 members were sent to Cuba for several weeks each year with the Venceremos Brigades, a continuation of the SDS/Weather Underground program begun in the sixties, for explosives training from Cuban intelligence, DGI.”

 

Here’s the big revelation: “A former May 19 member I spoke with identified Obama as participating in their public protests and meetings. In his ‘Dreams’ book, Obama mentions transferring to Columbia to pursue his interest in activism and recounts attendance at some events similar to those sponsored by May 19.”

 

This might help explain why Borup and Duke are still on the loose. And why Obama never demanded the extradition of Black Liberation Army cop-killer Assata Shakur and FALN bomb-maker William Morales from Cuba.

 

In addition to the focus on Obama, our November 10 conference will expose the Red Pope, Francis, who was Obama’s collaborator after a George Soros-engineered coup forced Pope Benedict to resign. The old joke, “Is the Pope Catholic?,” is not funny anymore. This pope is not Catholic; he’s a communist.

 

George Neumayr, author of The Political Pope, examines the communist ideology driving Jesuit Pope Francis and the movement for world government in the ASI TV program “The Red Pope: Enemy Occupation of the Vatican.”

___________________

America’s Survival, Inc. is recognized as a 501 (C)3 organization by the IRS. Your donation is tax-deductible to the full extent of the law.

 

© America’s Survival, Inc.

 

About America’s Survival, Inc. (ASI)

 

America’s Survival, Inc. (ASI) is recognized as a 501 (C) 3 educational organization. ASI President Cliff Kincaid is editor of the ASI web sites www.usasurvival.orgwww.stopglobaltaxes.org, and www.religiousleftexposed.com  ASI  is on Facebook and Twitter and has a YouTube channel featuring videos from ASI conferences and other events.

 

ASI specializes in exposing the United Nations, international organizations and extremist movements. We are currently working to re-establish committees or subcommittees to investigate internal security problems.

 

Office telephone: 443-964-8208

Email: Kincaid@comcast.net

Mailing Address:

America’s Survival. Inc.
P.O. Box 146
Owings, MD 20736

 

DONATE TO ASI

 

Flight of the Hwasong-14


Justin Smith discusses the acts of war conducted by North Korea that includes nuclear ICBM nuclear provocations.

 

JRH 7/10/17

Please Support NCCR

******************

Flight of the Hwasong-14

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 7/9/2017 3:50 PM

 

Hwasong-14 & Kim Jong UN

 

America can no longer afford to hurl ineffective economic sanctions at North Korea, that are too often violated by nations like China, while North Korea and its malevolent dictator, Kim Jong Un, prepare to let nuclear armed missiles fly at their leisure. The United States government and President Donald Trump must give some hard, serious and real consideration on striking at the heart of Pyongyang North Korea, Kim Jong Un’s regime and all North Korean missile launch sites and nuclear facilities, since placing our country’s fate in the hands of a murderous and unstable dictator, who has murdered senior officials and family members on a whim, and a regime capable of reckless behavior would be beyond egregious and a monumental mistake.

 

On July 4th 2017, North Korea conducted a missile test of the Hwasong-14 that was a success in many ways. There is little reason to question North Korea’s claim that the missile reached an altitude of over 1700 miles and hit a target 580 miles away, in light of the fact that North Korea placed two satellites in space in 2012. This demonstrated that, at a lower altitude and straighter trajectory, Anchorage Alaska, Guam, Hawaii, Japan and even Queensland Australia are within range of Pyongyang’s nuclear missiles, once it perfects the process of miniaturizing the nuclear warheads. Washington was also served a warning.

 

An intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) launched from North Korea would hit Los Angeles within thirty minutes. Riki Ellison, chairman of the nonprofit Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, asserts that North Korea already has miniaturized warheads capable of delivering 20 kilotons of destruction, similar to the bomb detonated over Nagasaki during WWII, and many other experts predict that Kim Jong Un will have the capability to hit America’s West Coast before President Trump completes his first term.

 

A nuclear armed and unpredictable rogue state, North Korea will not be deterred along similar lines as the former Soviet Union and China have been. They have less to lose than any previous nuclear power, and Pyongyang will most certainly attempt nuclear blackmail at best. In the worst case scenario, Pyongyang will give nukes to our Islamic enemies and third party terrorists, to insert in our harbors and cities.

 

North Korea has pursued nuclear weapons, since the day it acquired nuclear technology from the Soviet Union in the 1950s. It is too close to success to stop. And besides, Kim Jong Un’s survival depends on a viable nuclear weapons system.

 

According to Sue Mi Terry, a former CIA analyst, who met with North Koreans and a group of Western experts last month in Sweden, at the Asia Society, “The North Koreans emphasize over and over, denuclearization is completely off the table … they say it’s not negotiable.”

 

Last month, Michael Auslin, from the Hoover Institute, bluntly told a group of journalists in Washington, “Negotiations won’t work“.

 

This rogue nation knows no bounds, when it comes to committing acts of evil. Not only did they slowly murder [HERE and HERE] Otto Warmbier, a U.S. citizen and college student, over an eighteen month period, the Kim Family regime has committed numerous flagrant violations of the July 7th 1953 Korean War Armistice. This regime killed thirty-one U.S. Airmen, when it shot them down in South Korean airspace in 1969, and thirty-five North Korean soldiers hacked U.S. Captain Arthur Bonifas and First Lieutenant Mark Barrett to death in 1976, near the Demilitarized Zone. Also, in 1968, this regime captured the USS Pueblo in international waters and held 82 Navy crewmen for eleven months. And North Korea has never met with any meaningful consequences for their acts of war.

 

North Korea was already blatantly defiant and violently aggressive without nukes and a missile delivery system. Just imagine how far Kim Jong Un will go, once he has a fully operational nuclear arsenal at his fingertips.

 

Does anyone really believe a nuclear armed North Korea won’t exact a heavy price from the free world?

 

An April 15th 2017 editorial in the Chinese Communist newspaper, the ‘Global Times, essentially stated that Beijing would not militarily intervene, if Washington conducts a preemptive strike against North Korean nuclear facilities. However, China won’t accept a non-communist regime in North Korea or U.S. troops crossing the 38th Parallel. If the U.S. strikes the Kim regime, China would likely focus on instituting a pro-China regime and possibly seizing North Korea’s missile and nuclear sites, rather than a war with U.S.-South Korea joint military forces.

 

The Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) is less than forty miles from Seoul’s 25 million inhabitants and lined with 8,000 pieces of North Korean artillery and rocket launchers. Within the first hour of any renewed conventional war between the two Koreas, North Korea has the ability to unleash the equivalent of 300,000 tons of TNT on Seoul, possibly killing as many as 100,000 people. For this reason, during a May 2017 press conference, Secretary of Defense James Mattis stated, “If this goes to a military solution, it’s going to be tragic on an unbelievable scale”.

 

Seoul has much to lose, however, any military move against North Korea doesn’t necessarily have to be the tragedy some U.S. officials have suggested it would be. And while America may be bound by treaty to defend South Korea, our leaders and President Trump cannot allow South Korean President Moon Jae-in’s conciliatory policy towards North Korea to place the U.S. in the untenable position of accepting a capable nuclear armed North Korea and any consequences that follow.

 

On Wednesday, the Fifth of July, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley told the U.N. Security Council that our “considerable military forces” were an option. Continuing, Nikki Haley stated, “We will use them if we must, but we prefer not to go in that direction”.

 

A preemptive strike is not a good option, and nobody assumes it would be easy. People will die on both sides, but North Korea’s nuclear threat is one that must be destroyed, before it grows too much stronger, or exponentially more lives will be lost in its wake years hence. America can do it without near the tragic results for Seoul that Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis states, if the U.S. will resolve to drop tactical nukes and MOABs on the nuclear facilities, the launch sites at Sohae and Tonghae [aka Donghae] and the eight thousand pieces of artillery and military units along the Demilitarized Zone simultaneously.

 

One should note that prior to the signing of the Armistice in 1953 and the cease-fire that followed, President Dwight D. Eisenhower considered using nukes against North Korea to end the war. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles agreed that the United States should not shrink from using nuclear weapons, especially if their use prevented a greater loss of life over time, but he did favor limited use.

 

Kim Jong Un arrogantly fired Hwasong-14 on America’s Independence Day, in utter contempt of any objections from either China or the Free World. America answered with U.S. Air Force B-1B Lancer bombers and South Korean and Japanese jet fighters joint flights over the Korean Peninsula on July 7th 2017, the sixty-fourth anniversary of the signing of the Korean War Armistice.

 

Is it not apparent to the world that America is one of the last nations standing between tyrants and freedom?

 

War should never be a first, second or even third choice. The Land of the Free, America cannot and must not tolerate a nation that enslaves and murders its own people and citizens from other nations. The Home of the Brave, America cannot and must not lapse into a fool-hardy and cowardly repose in the face of a fat boy tyrant, who called the Hwasong-14 test a “gift to the American bastards”. America must not find Herself firing off more sanctions on the day Kim Jong Un detonates a bright glowing nuke over one of our cities. Stopping North Korea requires war.

 

By Justin O. Smith

______________

Edited by John R. Houk

Text within brackets and all source links by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

Israel Kicks Hostile Arab Armies’ Butts 50 Yrs. Ago


John R. Houk

© June 6, 2017

 

In the 1967 – 50-years ago – June 5 -10; Israel fought a war with at least four Arab nations amassing troops on Israel’s border. Begin counting from day one through the last day, you have the Six-Day War.

 

Israel AGAIN defeated armies much-much larger than the Israel Defense Force (IDF). The Arab nations prepared for invasion for what they believed would be the utter destruction of Israel. Wisely, Israel utterly surprised the Egyptian military front by launching a preemptive attack which destroyed most of Egypt’s air force. Using the shock to Israel’s advantage, the IDF then launched their vastly outnumbered tanks and pushed Egypt out of the Sinai.  Then Jordan and Syria launched their invasions unaware that Egypt had gotten their butts kicked in the Sinai. Although there was a less of a surprise, the IDF ultimately prevailed against Syria and Jordan. The Golan Heights was taken from Syria and the land conquered by Jordan in 1948 was taken back which included Israel’s heritage of uniting Jerusalem. Making Jerusalem whole allowed Jewish access to their most holy site left to them – the Western Wall still standing after the Romans destroyed the Jewish Temple circa 70 AD.

 

The Six Day War Project has a great video setting up the scene leading to 1967:

 

VIDEO: Why Did Israel Go To War? | Six Day War Project #1

 

Posted by Jerusalem U

Published on May 17, 2017

 

1/12 | In the first video of the mini-series, find out about the early steps that led to the 1967 Six Day War – a war that changed the future of Israel. Surrounded by enemy neighbors and only nine miles wide at its narrowest point, Israel was vulnerable.

See all the videos as they are released: http://www.sixdaywarproject.org/.

In May of 1967, the state of Israel was only 19 years old. At its inception in 1948, five Arab armies had coordinated a military invasion to prevent the creation of the small Jewish country. But Israel’s War of Independence succeeded in repelling the forces bent on Israel’s destruction. Israel reclaimed sovereignty over the ancient Jewish homeland, making way for the establishment of a Jewish country after 2,000 years of statelessness and periods of persecution.

Yet despite Israel’s success in creating a new country, it did not enjoy peace with its neighbors. Terrorism and frequent attacks on three borders kept Israel in a perpetual state of alert.

To the north, from the Golan Heights, Syria shelled Jewish communities below on a regular basis. In the South and East, Arab terrorists from Egyptian-controlled Gaza and the Jordanian-controlled West Bank infiltrated and perpetrated attacks on Israeli civilians, killing 400 in the 19 years since Israeli independence.

The attacks reached the point that they were condemned as “deplorable” by then-Secretary General of the United Nations U Thant.

Although the Jewish state had been welcomed into the United Nations and hailed by the international community, its Arab neighbors rejected its very right to exist, preparing to resume a war for Israel’s destruction which they had halted 19 years earlier. The Arab buildup for all-out war was very near.

In this video – the first in a 12-part mini-series – you will learn about the regional atmosphere leading up to the 1967 Six Day War, and find out about the early steps that led to the war that changed the future of Israel.

Like the Six Day War Project on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sixdaywarproject

This video was produced by Jerusalem U in partnership with The Jerusalem Post, the Jewish Federations of North America, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, the Jewish National Fund, the Israel Action Network, the European Jewish Congress and the Center for Israel Education. For more on the dramatic events and impact of the Six Day War, visit sixdaywarproject.org.

Thumbnail Photo Credit: Israel GPO/Moshe Milner
———–

Subscribe and check out more awesome JerusalemU videos!
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCU63EiU7Y-8xcRntPIRVrzA?sub_confirmation=1
GET SOCIAL @ JERUSALEM U:
https://www.jerusalemu.org/
https://www.facebook.com/JerusalemU
http://instagram.com/Jerusalem_U
http://twitter.com/Jerusalem_U

———–

Are you Jewish and aged 16-28? You could be eligible for READ THE REST

 

If you are a bit impatient to educate yourself at the Six Day War Project, here is a 6:45 abbreviated 6-Day War documentary that will provide the highlights:

 

VIDEO: 50 Years Later: Remembering the Six-Day War

 

Posted by AIPAC

Published on May 24, 2017

 

While the military victory was resounding, the Six-Day War created unresolved challenges that Israel grapples with to this day. The war also bolstered America’s pro-Israel community and helped to further reinforce the foundation of the U.S.-Israel strategic relationship and America’s pro-Israel community. Learn more: http://fal.cn/SixDayWarReflections

 

Adam Garfinkle wrote an essay for the Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI) reflecting on his historical view of the results of the Israeli victory in the 6-Day War.

 

JRH 6/6/17

Please Support NCCR

****************

The Six Day and Fifty Years War

 

By Adam Garfinkle

June 5, 2017

Foreign Policy Research Institute

 

Defense Minister Moshe Dayan, Chief-of-Staff Yitzhak Rabin, Gen. Rehavam Zeevi R and Gen. Narkis in the old city of Jerusalem – Source: Government Press Office/Flickr

 

The most important lesson of the June 1967 Arab-Israeli war is that there is no such thing as a clean war. That war was very short and stunningly decisive militarily; it has been anything but politically. From the Israeli point of view, military victory solved some serious near-term challenges, but at the cost of generating or exacerbating a host of longer-term ones—some of which may have come along anyway, some not, some of which may have been averted (or worsened) had Israeli postwar policy been different—and we cannot know for certain which are which. To ask whether what has transpired after the war “had to be that way” constitutes an aspiration to levitate the philosopher’s stone.

 

At any rate, of the war’s many consequences, three stand out as pre-eminent. First, major wars change the societies that fight and endure their consequences. The Six Day War changed the political, social-psychological, and, in at least one key case, demographic balances within all the participating states and a few others besides, with multiple and varying secondary and tertiary effects over the years. Second, despite the war’s after-optic of a smashing Arab loss, it was the best thing that ever happened to the Palestinian national movement. And third, the war catalyzed a redirection of U.S. Cold War policy in the Middle East (and arguably beyond) from one teetering on the edge of generic failure to one of significant success.

 

At this fiftieth “jubilee” anniversary of the war, buckets of ink will inevitably be spilled mooting and booting about such questions and many others; a lot already has been, and I am not reluctant to add to the bucket count.[1] But before doing so, we all need to take a deep breath to inhale as much humility as we can—to remind ourselves what exactly we are doing and what we cannot do when we exhume moldering chunks of anniversarial history for reexamination.

 

Shiny Anniversaries

 

We are so very attracted to anniversaries in the long parade of political history. We love to draw clear lessons from them, if we can—and if we can’t some others will claim to do so anyway. We are also attracted to thinking in terms of parsimonious eras with sharp lines of delineation between them; anniversaries of turning or tipping points help us mightily to draw such lines—which is precisely why we call them epochal. Wars, mostly hot but occasionally cold, figure centrally in the pantheon of such points.

 

The June 1967 Arab-Israeli War is all but universally considered to be epochal in this sense, so the recent ink flow is no wonder as journalists, scholars, memoirists, and others look for lessons and insight as to how those supposed sharp lines that divide eras were drawn. The subtitle of a new book furnishes a case in point: “The Breaking of the Middle East.”[2]

 

There is a problem here—at least one, arguably more than one. Without yet having read this book, I cannot say for sure that this subtitle is not magnificently meaningful. But I can say for sure that it puzzles me. What does it mean to say that a region of the world is “broken”? Does it imply that before the 1967 Middle East War the region was somehow whole, a description that implies adjectives such as peaceful, stable, and nestled in the warm logic of a benign cosmos; and suggests that regional wholeness also meant that its state or regime units were seen as legitimate by their own populations and by other states and regimes? So on June 4, 1967, the Middle East was whole, and by June 11, it was well on its way to being broken?

 

All of which is to say that the penchant for reposing great significance in anniversaries is often distortive, because for many it reinforces the right-angled sureties and sharp distinctions—and presumed causal chains leading into our own time bearing those precious, sought-after lessons—that historical reality rarely abides. Only by rounding off the ragged edges, usually with a rasp composed of our contemporary concerns and convictions unselfconsciously pointed backwards, can such artificial categories be devised. Ambiguity annoys most people, and so they go to some lengths to duck it, in the case of getting arms around history by generating categories, boxes, and labels into which to shove obdurate facts. History, meanwhile, remains the sprawling entropic mess it has always been and will always remain.

 

To employ the anti-ambiguity rasp presupposes, too, that the craftsman commands cause and effect. We can, after all, only simplify a reality we presume to understand in its detail. When it comes to the Six Day War, that means presuming to know how it started and why, how it ended and why, and what the war led to thereafter in an array of categories: how the postwar geopolitical trajectory of the core Middle Eastern region and its periphery spilled forth; how the region’s relationship to the key Cold War superpower protagonists shifted; the war’s impact on the domestic political cultures of participants and near-onlookers; and more besides.

 

The problem here is that we know with confidence only some of these causal skeins, and, what is more (or actually less), some of what we know has not stayed constant over the past half century. At one point, say thirty years ago, we thought we understood the Soviet government’s role in fomenting the crisis by sending false reports of events in Syria to the Egyptian leadership; after the Soviet archive opened in the early 1990s, consensus on that point has weakened as revisionist interpretations have come forth.[3] Nasser’s moving-target motives at various points in the crisis leading to war seemed clear for a time, until they no longer quite did. Several more examples of elusive once-truths could be cited.

 

Alas, every seminal event has a pre-context and a post-context: the convolutions of historical reality that give rise to an event and its causal afterflow. The further we get from the event, the greater the still-expanding post-context overshadows the pre-context, because we can see, for example, how various things turned out in 2017 in a way we could not have in, say, 1987. But so much else has happened that must, of necessity, dilute any construction of direct or preponderant causality.

 

Thus, did the war push Israeli society into becoming more religious, as many have claimed? Did it help shift Israeli politics to the Right by transforming the relationship of Orthodox Judaism to Zionism, leading Orthodox Israelis to engage on many political issues to which they had been formerly aloof? Or was that a deeper social-demographic trend that would have happened anyway, if differently, war or no war? So we face a paradox: the richer the post-context becomes for any epochal event, the poorer becomes our ability to isolate its downstream impact. As already suggested, we often enough make up for that poverty by exiling natural ambiguity before the demands of our current questions or biases. That is how we predict the past.

 

Scholars do try to isolate causal threads, of course, but differently because intellectual business models, so to speak, differ. Historians tend to seek out particularities; political scientists tend to search for general rules. Historians like their rocks fresh and jagged; political scientists like theirs rounded by patterns that flow through time. Each to their own intellectual aesthetic.

 

And the rest of us? How do we chase truth in history? Consider that if you pick up a history book and a memoir old enough to serve as an adjunct to it, you will have in your hands two different perspectives on the political world. An international political history of the 1930s written in the 2010s will take a passage of reality—say about the British, French, and American reaction to the 1935 Italian aggression against Ethiopia—and might spend two sentences or perhaps a paragraph on it. A memoir written in the 1950s by someone actually involved in debating and shaping that reaction will read very differently, recalling details, sideways connections to other issues, and nuances of policies and personalities bound to be lost in a general text if it aspires to be less than 10,000 pages long. In a history book such a mid-level event is likely to be framed as a consequence of larger forces that were leading to more portentous happenings (say, World War II); in a memoir it is more likely to be framed as both illustration of a synthetic historical moment, akin to a zeitgeist that is fully felt but is recalcitrant to reductionist analysis, and partial cause of what came after. Which do we read; which do we trust?

 

The answer is both, and wholly neither. How will the Six Day War figure in history books fifty years from now? There’s no way to know, because it will depend at least as much on what happens between now and then as it will on what happened in May and June 1967. But one thing we do know: As the post-context of the war doubles, the thinness and sameness of the description will grow, and be of little help in understanding how the main actors involved saw their circumstances. It will lose a sense of human verisimilitude. Details invariably give way to theme, and narratives grow shorter even as their truth claims grow larger. The thickness of memoirs will retain that sense of human verisimilitude. But what they provide in terms of broader context may suffer from too narrow an authorial aperture, and perhaps a bad memory in service to ego protection, if not other incidental causes of inaccuracy. As with many aspects of life, intellectual and otherwise, tradeoffs spite us in our search for clarity.

 

The point of all this?  Anniversaries are shiny. They attract a lot of attention, much of it self-interested and sentimental enough to lure some people into excessive simplifications if not outright simplemindedness. If someone will bait the hook, someone else will swallow it. We witnessed exactly such a spectacle not long ago at the 100th anniversary of Sykes-Picot, and we’ll see it again a few months hence with the 100th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration.[4] But as Max Frankel once said, “simplemindedness is not a handicap in the competition of social ideas”—or, he might have added, historical interpretations. If it gets you on TV talk shows to sell your book, no form of simplification is liable to remain out of bounds these days. After all, what is fake history if not a collection of aged fake news?

 

Shining On

 

Never mind all that: I want people to read this essay, so rest assured that I know what happened and why, and what it all means even down to today. And now that I have donned sequins and glitter, I can be almost as brief and punchy as I am shiny, as is the current custom.

 

What did the war mean for the region? Plenty. It proved to remaining doubters that the Arabs could not destroy Israel by conventional force of arms. It helped establish Israel’s permanence in the eyes of its adversaries, the world at large, and, to an extent, in the eyes of its own people. That changed Israel’s domestic political culture. It no longer felt to the same extent like a pressure-cooking society under constant siege, and that, along with demographic and other subterranean social trends, ironically loosened the political grip of Israel’s founding generation of leaders, and the Labor Party. Less than a decade after the war Revisionist Zionists came to power for the first time, and now, fifty years later, Israel has the most rightwing government in its history. Did the Six Day War directly cause that? Of course not; but it was one of many factors that steered Israeli politics toward its current circumstances.

 

The war also began the occupation, first of Golan, the West Bank, and Gaza—in time a bit less of Golan and not of Gaza at all. If you had told typical Israelis in the summer of 1967 that fifty years later the West Bank would still be essentially occupied, neither traded for peace nor annexed, they would have thought you mad or joking. Israel as an independent state was 19 years and a few weeks old on June 5, 1967. The twentieth anniversary of the war in 1987 was about the midpoint of Israel’s modern history, half within-the-Green-Line and half beyond it. Now vastly more of Israel’s history has passed with the occupation as a part of it. Many more Israelis today cannot remember Israel in its pre-June 1967 borders than can—and that includes the Arabs citizens of the state as well as their ethno-linguistic kin living in the West Bank and Gaza.

 

In Israel there is a huge open debate, and a constant more private discussion beneath it, as to how the occupation has changed the nature of Israeli society. It is a difficult debate to set premises for, because in fifty years a lot is going to change in any modern society, occupation or no occupation. My view, like that of most Israelis I know, is that the occupation has been significantly corrosive of many Israeli institutions. They would like the occupation to end if it could be ended safely; but increasingly most agree that it can’t be, at least anytime soon. The remarkable fact is that, considering the circumstances, the damage to morale and heart, beyond institutions, has not been even worse. Israel’s moral realism has proved resilient. But the damage has not been slight, and of course it is ongoing.

 

As for the Arabs, the war crushed the pretentions of Arab Socialism and of Gamal Abdel Nasser. Within what the late Malcolm Kerr called “the Arab Cold War” it played in favor of the Arab monarchies against the military-ruled republics and hence generally in favor of the West; but it did not guarantee the safety of monarchical rule everywhere: Just 27 months later the Sanusi kingdom in Libya fell to a young army colonel named Muamar Qadaffi. None of the defeated Arab states lost its leader right away: not Nasser in Egypt, or King Hussein in Jordan, or Nurredin al-Atassi in Syria. But by the late autumn of 1970 Nasser was dead and al-Atassi had been displaced by Hafez al-Assad. Rulers also rolled in Iraq, and the very next year, with the British withdrawal from East of Suez, the United Arab Emirates came into being against its own will.

 

The war, therefore, was one element—more important in some places than others—in a general roiling of Arab politics (and I haven’t even mentioned stability-challenged zones like Yemen and Sudan), those politics being pre-embedded, so to speak, in generically weak states (again, some more than others).[5] Not that Arab politics was an oasis of serenity before June 1967 either, as a glance at post-independence Syrian history will show. Indeed, the contention that the Six Day War, by hollowing out the pretensions of secular Arab nationalism for all to see, presaged the “return of Islam” with which we and many others struggle today is both true and overstated—in other words, too shiny. The frailties of secular nationalism among the Arab states preceded the war and would have multiplied on account of any number and kind of failures to come, war or no war.

 

In any event, the political impact of the Arab loss was mitigated by the “Palestine” contradiction that then lay at the heart of Arab politics. “Palestine” was, and remains to some extent, a badge of shame, for it epitomizes the failure of the Arab states to achieve its goals. Yet it is only a badge; the persistence of the conflict, sharply inflected by the 1967 loss, has served as a raison d’être for most ruling Arab elites, their unflagging opposition to Israel as a symbol of legitimacy. In the parlous context of inter-Arab politics, too, the conflict has served as the only thing on which all the Arab regimes could symbolically unite. Non-democratic Arab elites have used the conflict both as a form of street control internally, and as a jousting lance in their relations with other Arab states.

 

Yet by far the most important consequence of the Arab defeat in 1967 was to free the Palestinian national movement from the clutches of the Arab states. The theory before June 1967 was that the Arab states would destroy Israel in a convulsive, epic war, and then hand Palestine over to the Palestinians. The hysteria that overtook the Arab street leading to war shows how widespread this theory was, and the war itself showed how hollow a promise it was. So the Palestinians took matters into their own hands for the first time, seizing control of the Palestine Liberation Organization from its Egyptian sponsors and reversing the theoretical dynamic of liberation:  Palestinians would liberate Palestine, and that victory would supercharge and unify the Arabs to face the hydra-headed monster of Western imperialism. The key bookends of this transformation as it manifested itself in Arab politics writ large were the Rabat Arab Summit of 1974, which passed responsibility for “occupied Palestine” from Jordan to the PLO, and the 1988 decision by King Hussein to formally relinquish Jordan’s association with the West Bank, which it had annexed and ruled for 18 years after the 1949 Rhodes Armistice agreements.

 

But how would the Palestinians themselves, led by the new and authentic PLO, liberate Palestine? They had in mind a revolutionary people’s war, an insurrection focused on the territories Israel newly occupied. It took its inspiration from lukewarm Maoism and its example from the Vietcong. The attempted insurrection in the West Bank failed miserably and rapidly; terrorist attacks mounted from east of the Jordan and across the border with Egypt became the next tactical phase as Palestinian nationalism’s organizational expression fractured. In time, Palestinian use of contiguous lands in Jordan and later in Lebanon to launch repeated terror attacks against Israeli civilians sparked civil wars in both countries. It did not bring about the “liberation” of even one square centimeter of “Palestine.”

 

Terrorism, however, did put the Palestinian issue “on the map” for much of the world, and now, fifty years later, Palestinians can have a state if their leaders really want one and are prepared to do what it takes to get it—the evidence so far suggesting that they don’t, and won’t. Nevertheless, looking back from fifty years’ hindsight, the Six Day War was about the best thing that could have happened for the Palestinians; that fact that they have not consolidated that windfall politically is their own doing, but everyone’s tragedy.

 

As to terrorism, it is true that the pusillanimous behavior of many governments in the 1970s, including some allied in NATO to the United States, helped the PLO shoot, bomb, and murder its way to political respectability. So one might venture that by helping to show that terrorism post-Six Day War can work at least to some extent, these governments bear some responsibility for the metathesis of nationalist, instrumentalist terrorism into the mass-murder apocalyptical kind we have witnessed more recently with al-Qaeda and ISIS. To me it’s another in a series of shiny arguments, more superficially attractive than fully persuasive. It is not entirely baseless, however.

 

But far more important than what the war did for the thinking of the Palestinians was what it did to the thinking of the Arab state leaders whose lands were now under Israeli occupation: Egypt, Jordan, and Syria.  Before the war, Arab support for “Palestine” was highly theoretical, highly ineffectual, and in truth amounted merely to a symbolic football the Arab regimes used to compete with one another in the ethereal arena of pan-Arab fantasies. Now, suddenly, the core national interests of three Arab states—including the largest and most important one, Egypt—became directly and ineluctably entwined with the reality as opposed to the symbol of Israel.

 

The Egyptians, particularly after Nasser’s death brought Anwar el-Sadat to power, got downright pragmatic. Israel had something these three states wanted—chunks of their land. And the Egyptian and Jordanian leaderships, at least, knew that a price would have to be paid to redeem that pragmatism. Complications aplenty there were, as anyone who lived through the dozen years after the 1967 War knows well. Nevertheless, this critical divide among the Arabs—between state leaders who could afford to remain only symbolically engaged and those who could not—shaped inter-Arab politics then and still does to some degree today. First Egypt in March 1979 and then Jordan in October 1994 paid the price and made peace with Israel. It seemed like forever passed between June 1967 and March 1979, but it was less than a dozen years—quick by historical standards.

 

While Egypt recovered the entire Sinai through its peace arrangement with Israel, Jordan did not recover the West Bank. The war had shifted the political demography of the Hashemite Kingdom, sending more Palestinians to live among East Bankers—some now refugees twice over and some for the first time. The consequence was to intensify Jordan’s internalization of its problem with Palestinian nationalism: It had lost land but gained souls whose fealty to the monarchy was presumably weak. The benefit of peace to Jordan in 1984, and hence its main purpose from King Hussein’s point of view, was therefore not to regain territory but to strengthen the stake that both Israel and the United States had in Jordan’s stability in the face of future challenge from any quarter, internal and external alike.

 

Syria, do note, did not follow the Egyptian and Jordanian path to peace, and so the Golan Heights remain for all practical purposes part of Israel. The reasons have to do with the complex sectarian demography of the country, and specifically with the fact that since 1970 Syria has been ruled by a minoritarian sect in loose confederation with the country’s other non-Sunni minorities. The Alawi regime has needed the symbolic pan-Arab mantle of the Palestinian cause more than any other Arab state, particularly as one with a border with Israel. Regime leaders anyway did not consider the Golan to be their sectarian patrimony, but more important, peace and normalization seemed to the Syrian leadership more of a threat to its longevity (and to its ability to meddle in Lebanese affairs) than a benefit. Now that Syria as a territorial unit has dissolved in a brutal civil war, the legacy of 1967 has been rendered all but moot.

 

Does that mean that Egypt and Jordan essentially sold out the Palestinians, making a separate peace? Well, much political theater aside, yes. But they really had no choice, and not selling out the Palestinians would not have gained the Palestinians what they wanted anyway. That, in turn, left the Palestinians with little choice. Eventually, the PLO leadership also decided to “engage” Israel directly, but without giving up what it still called the “armed struggle.”

 

Its partial pragmatism, tactical in character, gained the PLO a partial advance for the Palestinians through the truncated Oslo process: a kind of government with a presence in Palestine; some “police” under arms; a transitional capital in Ramallah; wide international recognition; and more. Withal, the “territories” remain under Israeli security control, and the Palestinian economy (jobs, electricity grid, water, and more) remains essentially a hostage to Israel’s.

 

This has given rise to perhaps the most underappreciated irony in a conflict replete with them: First Israel internalized the Palestinian nationalist problem in June 1967 by occupying at length the West Bank and Gaza, and then the PLO internalized its Israel problem by drifting via Oslo into essential dependence on Israel for basic sustenance and even security support (against Hamas, for example). Note that it was hard for Israel to bomb PLO headquarters in Tunis in October 1985, but very easy to send a tank column into downtown Ramallah ten years later. It’s all so very odd, you may think, but there you have it.

 

The Bigger Picture

 

Now to the larger, international scene. What the Six Day War showed was that Soviet patronage of the Arabs and arms sales to them could deliver neither victory to the Arabs nor reflected advantage for the Soviet Union. This devalued the allure of Soviet regional overtures reassured the Western-oriented Arab regimes and hence played directly into the portfolio of U.S. and Western interests: keep the Soviets out, the oil flowing, and Israel in existence (the latter construed at the time as a moral-historical obligation, not a strategic desideratum).

 

The Johnson administration figured the essence out, which is why in the aftermath of the war it did not do what the Eisenhower administration did after the Suez War of 1956: pressure Israel to leave the territories it had conquered in return for promises that, in the event, turned out to be worthless. It rather brokered a new document—UNSCR 242—calling for withdrawal from territories (not “the” territories) in return for peace.

 

But it was not until the War of Attrition broke out in 1969 around and above the Suez Canal—a direct follow-on to the Six Day War—that the new Nixon administration codified in policy this basic strategic understanding. To prevent and if possible roll back Soviet inroads in the Middle East, the U.S. government would guarantee continued Israeli military superiority—that was the start of the major U.S. military supply relationship to Israel that endures today (the younger set may not know it, but Israel won the Six Day War with a French-supplied air force). In short, nothing the Soviets could supply or do would help the Arabs regain their lands or make good their threats. The events of the Jordanian Civil War in September 1970, and the way Nixon administration principles insisted on interpreting and speaking about that civil war, only deepened the conviction and the anchors of the policy.

 

On balance, the policy worked well, despite one painful interruption. By July 1972, President Sadat had sent a huge Soviet military mission packing out of Egypt, and was all but begging the United States to open a new relationship. Egypt had been by far the most critical of Soviet clients in the Middle East, and Sadat’s volte face represented a huge victory for U.S. diplomacy. Alas, neither the victory-besotted Israelis nor the increasingly distracted Americans paid Sadat the attention he craved—so he taunted the Soviets to give him just enough stuff to draw Jerusalem and Washington’s eyes his way: He started a war in October 1973. This also worked, leading as already noted to the March 1979 peace treaty—a geopolitical and psychological game-changer in the region and, ultimately, beyond.

 

For most practical purposes, Israel’s role as an effective proxy for U.S. power in the Middle East endured through the end of the Cold War, although its benefits paid out quietly, more often than not in what trouble it deterred as opposed to actively fought.[6] And the Israeli-Egyptian relationship—imperfect as it may be—still endures as a guarantee that there can be no more Arab-Israeli conventional wars on the scale of 1967 or even 1973. These are both, at least partially, strategic achievements born of the conjoining of Israeli power and American diplomacy, and—it bears mentioning—these are achievements that were constructed and made to endure pretty much regardless of the state of play in Israel’s relations with the Palestinians.

 

Obviously, the end of the Cold War put paid to the structure of this regional American strategy, its logic dissipated through victory. In that sense, the larger global strategic impact of the Six Day War ended when the Berlin Wall fell. While Israel remains a strategic partner of the United States in the post-Cold War environment, largely through intelligence sharing and other activities, its value as strategic proxy diminished as the focus of U.S. concerns moved east, toward Iraq and the Gulf. In the 1991 Gulf War, for example, Israel through no fault of its own became a complication for American policy—a target set for Iraqi scuds—not an asset, such that the U.S. government pleaded with its Israel counterpart not to use its military power against a common foe.

 

Amid the sectarian and proxy wars of the present moment in the region, Israeli arms lack any point of political entrée that can aid U.S. policy. Even when it comes to counterterrorism efforts, Israeli intelligence is indeed valuable but we will not see Israeli special forces attacking salafi terrorist organizations far from home. The last thing Israel needs is to persuade still more murderous enemies to gaze its way.

 

Only if the two parties come to focus on a common enemy—never the case during the Cold War, by the way, when for Israel the Arabs were the threat and for the United States the Soviets were the threat—could a truly robust U.S.-Israeli strategic partnership be born anew. And that common enemy, which could bring in also many Sunni Arab states and possibly Turkey as well, is of course Iran. But we are now very deep into the post-context of the Six Day War, more than six degrees of separation from any plausible causal skein leading back to June 1967.

 

A Smaller Picture

 

The war affected the political and social-psychological condition not only of state actors but of some others as well. As the Middle East crisis deepened in May 1967, I was a (nearly) 16-year old Jewish high school student in the Washington, D.C. area. Just like every American who was of age in November 1963 can remember where they were and what they were doing when they heard that President Kennedy had been assassinated, I suspect that just about every Jew of age anywhere in the world in May and June of 1967 can remember where they were and what they were doing when they heard that the war had started, and how they felt when it had ended.

 

We had been frightened, and afterwards we were relieved and even elated. It turned out that a lot of what we thought was true about the state of affairs at the time was incorrect. That was hardly a unique experience, but more important, over time the effects of the Six Day War on American Jewry and other Jewish communities outside Israel were dramatic—and the triangular relationship between Israel, American Jewry, and the United States has never since been the same.[7]

 

Figuring it all out has borne its own challenges, surprises, and disappointments. Those on all three sides who thought they knew what was going on—who was dependent on whom, who could count on whom, who had political leverage over whom, and so on—learned better, often the hard way. But none of this has involved armies with modern weapons and high-level state diplomacies interacting; no, it is truly complicated and tends to generate narratives that are very, very shiny—so let’s just leave it at that.

 

If You Pick Up the Gun, You Roll the Dice 

 

Let us conclude by returning to where we began, using another’s much earlier conclusion as our prooftext. On Saturday, June 3, 1967, Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol concluded a meeting of his inner cabinet with these words: “Nothing will be settled by a military victory. The Arabs will still be here.”

 

Eshkol (as well as the out-of-office but still prominent David Ben-Gurion) had counseled patience and restraint to Israel’s confident military leadership as the spring 1967 crisis grew, and only reluctantly came to the decision for war. Keenly sensing the ironies of history—Jewish history not least—he knew that the war would not be politically conclusive. He realized that whatever immediate threats needed to be extinguished, war would not deliver peace and security before, if ever, it delivered mixed and unanticipated consequences. He was right.

 

Not even the shrewdest statesmen are wise enough to foresee the consequences of a major war: When you pick up the gun, you roll the dice. That, I think, is no shiny lesson, but one more likely for the historically literate to recall the past’s many dull pains. May it help future leaders to control their own and others’ expectations if use force they must.

_____________

[1] I have written on the anniversary of the Six Day War before:  See “Arab Loss Had Profound Effect on Politics in the Middle East,” Jewish Exponent, June 5, 1987; “1967: One War Won, a Few Others Started,” Newsday, April 30, 1998; and “Six Days, and Forty Years,” The American Spectator, June 5, 2007.

 

[2] Guy Laron, The Six-Day War: The Breaking of the Middle East (Yale University Press).

[3] See, for example, Isabella Ginor & Gideon Remez, Foxbats Over Dimona: The Soviets’ Nuclear Gamble in the Six-Day War (Yale University Press, 2007).

[4]  On the former, note my “The Bullshistory of “Sykes-Picot”, The American Interest Online, May 16, 2016.

[5] For detail on what is meant by “pre-embedded” in “generically weak states,” see my “The Fall of Empires and the Formation of the Modern Middle East,” Orbis (Spring 2016).

[6] A point emphasized in Michael Mandelbaum, “1967’s Gift to America,” The American Interest Online, June 2, 2017.

[7] I have written of this triangular relationship elsewhere: “The Triangle Connecting the U.S., Israel and American Jewry May Be Coming Apart,” Tablet, November 5, 2013.

________________

Israel Kicks Hostile Arab Armies’ Butts 50 Yrs. Ago

John R. Houk

© June 6, 2017

____________

The Six Day and Fifty Years War

 

The Foreign Policy Research Institute, founded in 1955, is a non-partisan, non-profit 501(c)(3) organization devoted to bringing the insights of scholarship to bear on the development of policies that advance U.S. national interests. In the tradition of our founder, Ambassador Robert Strausz-Hupé, Philadelphia-based FPRI embraces history and geography to illuminate foreign policy challenges facing the United States. More about FPRI »

 

Foreign Policy Research Institute · 1528 Walnut St., Ste. 610 · Philadelphia, PA 19102 Tel: 1.215.732.3774 Fax: 1.215.732.4401 www.fpri.org

 

Copyright © 2000–2017. All Rights Reserved.

 

Multiculturalism Destroying Europe – Is USA Next?


John R. Houk

© June 5, 2017

 

There is a problem in cities spread across Europe with Muslim enclaves. These enclaves are a Third-World Muslim brutality transplanted into Europe. The Muslim brutality is so pervasive that they are often dubbed as No-Go Zones for non-Muslims, too often even applying to police authority.

 

SADLY, America’s Left Stream Media have thrown themselves into full scale Multiculturalist denial of the facts demonstrating No-Go Zones in European Muslim Enclaves is a painful reality. Dear God, even the Conservative to Left Stream Media in Fox News issued an apology for airing the No-Go Zone phenomena in European cities.

 

European Multiculturalist’s most hated Counterjihadist Fjordman wrote the facts back in April 2017:

 

In January 2015 The New York Times denied that there are “no-go-zones” — areas that are not under the control of the state and are ruled according to sharia law — dominated by certain immigrant groups in some urban areas in Western Europe. The American newspaper mentioned this author, alongside writers such as Steven Emerson and Daniel Pipes, for spreading this alleged falsehood. The article was published shortly after Islamic terrorists had massacred the staff of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris on January 7, 2015. Other established media outlets such as the magazine The Atlantic also dismissed claims of no-go-zones.

 

Fox News issued an unusual on-air apology for allowing its anchors and guests to repeat the suggestion that there are Muslim “no-go zones” in European countries such as Britain and France.

 

Regarding the subject of “no-go-zones,” this is largely a question of semantics. If you say that there are some areas where even the police are afraid to go, where the country’s normal, secular laws barely apply, then it is indisputable that such areas now exist in several Western European countries. France is one of the hardest hit: it has a large population of Arab and African immigrants, including millions of Muslims.

 

 

In an essay published in February 2016, Stockholm police inspector Lars Alvarsjö warned that the Swedish legal system is close to collapse. The influx of asylum seekers and ethnic gangs has overwhelmed the country and its understaffed police force. In many suburbs, criminal gangs have taken control and determine the rules. The police, fire brigades and ambulance personnel in these areas are routinely met with violent attacks.

 

 

In December 2016, the American Jewish documentary filmmaker Ami Horowitz told the story of his venture into Husby. A few seconds after they arrived, five men approached them. They said “You guys gotta get out of here right now.” The film crew, being Swedish, turned around and ran for it. Horowitz decided to stay and try to figure this thing out with the men.

 

… READ ENTIRETY (No-Go Zones Europe: Combating Fake News; By Fjordman; Gatestone Institute; 4/1/17 5:00 am)

 

Edmund Kozak writing for Lifezette spells out Ami Horowitz’s story of a Swedish No-Go Zone:

 

Filmmaker Ami Horowitz recently encountered the all-too-real brutality to be found in a Muslim “no-go” zone in Sweden.

 

“When they dragged me into that building, that’s really when I thought, ‘They’re going to end my life here,’” Horowitz told LifeZette. Horowitz painted a vivid picture of the extent of the danger of Muslim no-go zones in Sweden — even the police fear them, he said.

 

 

As Horowitz noted, liberals love to pretend that Muslim no-go zones — Muslim neighborhoods to which even the authorities are afraid to venture and in which Sharia law is the rule and non-Muslims are attacked on sight — are little more than a figment of paranoid conservative imaginations. But as Horowitz would find out for himself, they are very much a horrifying reality.

 

“Literally moments after I stepped into the town, a gang of five clearly Islamic men approached my crew, and they attacked me without provocation,” he continued. “They repeatedly punched, kicked and choked me, as a number of bystanders watched. Eventually they dragged me into a building, which at the time I assumed was to finish me off. Once inside the apartment building vestibule, they resumed their vicious attack. But seconds later someone opened an apartment door directly above us, and it luckily spooked them enough to run away,” wrote Horowitz.

 

 

While it is nearly impossible to gauge the full extent of the no-go zone problem, it is safe to say there are hundreds of no-go areas scattered throughout Europe. A March 2016 report published by the Hungarian government found 900 areas across Europe.

 

In France alone, where no-go areas are euphemistically referred to as “zones urbaines sensibles” — sensitive urban zones — the government counts over 750 such zones. In Sweden, the number could be “as high as 50, [but] the police who I spoke with … estimated there to be about 20-30,” Horowitz said.

 

In the United Kingdom, “you have to have extra vigilance in certain parts [of London] when you are working,” a London police officer told Breitbart News in December 2015. Also in December 2015, a police officer from Lancashire in northern England told the Daily Mail that, “there are Muslim areas of Preston that, if we wish to patrol, we have to contact local Muslim community leaders to get their permission.”

 

Germany also has its problems with no-go zones. In July 2015, a routine traffic stop in Gelsenkirchen turned into a nightmare when officers tried to carry out their duty. “During the arrest, the two officers were surrounded by about 50 members of a large family who suddenly appeared on the side streets,” local news reported.

 

The mob tried to intimidate the officers into dropping the arrest, but when that failed, a 15-year-old attacked the officers from behind and started choking one. The situation only returned to calm after backup arrived. “It was only with the summoned reinforcements that the police were able to put the situation back under control and arrest the youthful attacker,” the report said.

 

“Every police commissioner and interior minister will deny it. But of course we know where we can go with the police car and where, even initially, only with the personnel carrier,” Bernhard Witthaut, then-head of Germany’s police union, said … READ ENTIRETY (Hundreds of Muslim ‘No-Go’ Zones Take Root in Europe; By Edmund Kozak; Lifezette.com; 12/13/16 7:42 AM)

 

It does not take a rocket scientist that violence and murders against Europeans are largely the end result of carte blanche immigration of Muslims. These same Muslims have not and will not assimilate into the Western Culture. Thanks to the errors of Multiculturalism these Muslims are encouraged to retain the Medieval mentality that Islam is stuck in globally.

 

This Medieval mentality has bred a Muslim hatred into second and third generation Muslims descended from first generation immigrants. Islam teaches superiority over all things non-Muslim. Hence, in refusing assimilation logically leads to resentment of 21st century Westerners not inclined to submit Medieval cultural thinking.

 

These next-gen Muslims then are attracted to the concepts of what Westerners call Radical Islam. Enter Islamic terrorism into a European society that Multiculturalist politicians are in self-deceived denial which if continues, will likely result in the END of Western heritage that will be subsumed into an Islamized continent.

 

This Multiculturalist idiocy MUST NOT be allowed to metastasize in America! I wish I could use the phrase “not gain a toe-hold” in America, but thanks to the Obama years, Medieval-minded Muslim have already been brought in en masse to enlarge American-hating Muslim communities that have already formed non-assimilation zones in the U.S. of A.

 

VIDEO: John Guandolo Moment: The Jihadist-Leftist Matrix Unveiled.

 

Posted by The Glazov Gang

Published on Jun 3, 2017

 

John Guandolo Moment: The Jihadist-Leftist Matrix Unveiled.
President (“Understanding The Threat”)
—————————————————————–
Please support The Glazov Gang because we are a fan-generated show and need your help to keep going. Make a contribution or set up a monthly pledge. Thank you!

https://www.gofundme.com/GlazovGang

PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr… [TinyURL version: http://tinyurl.com/y942kvef]

Follow Us Here:
Site: http://jamieglazov.com
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang
TWITTER: https://twitter.com/JamieGlazov
YOUTUBE: https://www.youtube.com/user/TheFMPMG

 JRH 6/5/17 (Hat Tip: The Counter Jihad Report)

*****************

Islam’s Conquest of America One Town at a Time

 

By John Guandolo

June 5, 2017

Understanding The Threat

 

From Minneapolis (MN) to Hamtramck (MI) to Falls Church (VA) to Paterson (NJ) and many other towns and cities across the fifty states, the Islamic Movement is quietly conquering America.

 

The federal government sleeps, many state governments – including those controlled by Republicans – do their best to accommodate muslims waging Civilization Jihad against America, and the hard-left Marxists – including nearly all of the local and national media – are collaborators in the enemy’s efforts.

 

As UTT has previously reportedMinneapolis, Minnesota is currently enemy-held territory and will require force to take back.

 

Somali Muslims in Minneapolis

 

Hamtramck, Michigan is a small suburb of Detroitistan, and is the first town in America to have a majority muslim city council.  This formerly Polish-Catholic town has been overrun by sharia-adherent muslims who have already achieved accommodations for sharia in the community.

 

Falls Church, Virginia is home to the Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas’ Dar al Hijra Islamic Center.  The Muslim Brotherhood leader of Dar al Hijra, Sheikh Shaker Elsayed (former President of the MB’s Muslim American Society), recently gave a lecture promoting female genital mutilation.  Dar al Hijra is a jihadi factory whose property is owned by the MB’s bank NAIT (North American Islamic Trust).

 

Al Qaeda’s Anwar al Awlaki was the Imam of the Dar al Hijra beginning in January 2001 and serving for over a year there.

 

The community around Dar al Hijra has been taken over by sharia-adherent muslims.  Law enforcement calls the two twin apartment buildings in the area “Taliban Towers,” and the number of jihadis in this area of Northern Virginia, only minutes from the nation’s capital, is significant.

 

Historically, Paterson, New Jersey has been a melting pot of Irish, Germans, Dutch, Italians, Eastern Europeans and others.  Christians and Jews made a home in this town approximately 20 miles outside of New York City.

 

Now, estimates put the number of muslims in Paterson at over 30% of the total population.  This number – possibly over 40,000 – makes Paterson, New Jersey the town with the one of the highest concentrations of muslims in the United States.  Many Turks and Syrians are a part of the muslim community, but the majority are Palestinians/Hamas.  Many citizens are concerned for their safety and security.

Muslims on the streets of New York City near Trump Tower on June 1, 2017

 

What do these four communities – Paterson, Falls Church, Minneapolis, and Hamtramck – have in common?

 

  • Muslims concentrated their efforts in these communities, built up their numbers, and then asked for accommodations.  Once their numbers were significant enough, they made DEMANDS of local officials to accommodate sharia.

 

  • Islamic leaders (read: Muslim Brotherhood et al) purchased numerous plots of land in these communities – often with funds from Saudi Arabia – and began building of Mosques/Islamic Centers, Islamic schools, etc.

 

  • Once the mosques were built, land immediately around the mosque was purchased for muslims and, over time, muslims began occupying the land around the mosque up to a radius of approximately 3 miles.

 

  • Islamic organizations (read: Muslim Brotherhood) began outreaching to local Christian and Jewish leaders, as well as law enforcement and elected officials with positive results.  The majority of Pastors and Rabbis stood/stand with jihadis (“terrorists”) and publicly defend them because the Muslim Brotherhood’s “Interfaith Outreach” efforts work; many elected officials believe they “have to” meet with jihadi leaders to show how “progressive and open minded” they are; and law enforcement remains unaware of the grave threat growing like a cancer in their communities.

 

  • Collaborators in the media wrote/write glowing stories about how wonderful the muslims are and defend them right up to and, in some cases, after they kill Americans (eg New York Times defending Anwar al Awlaki after the U.S. government killed him because he was the Al Qaeda leader in Yemen).

 

 

  • Elected officials defend and even promote the jihadis. Example: Mayor Jones in Paterson, NJ raised the Palestinian flag over the City Hall and declared “Palestinian-American Day.”

 

Jihadis celebrating “Palestinian-American Day” in Paterson, NJ

 

Al Qaeda jihadi Anwar al Awlaki (R) and citizen Patricia Morris (L) who organized a “vigil” at the MB/Hamas Dar al Hijra Islamic Center after the 9/11/01 attacks on the United States

 

Cities which stand up against this onslaught, at least under the previous administration, find themselves fighting a lawsuit from the Department of Justice and U.S. Muslim Brotherhood groups.  In Bernard Township, NJ the town council said no to Islamic leaders’ request to build an Islamic center/mosque for a number of reasons.  The DoJ and the Muslim Brotherhood’s Islamic Center of Basking Ridge sued and forced the city to allow the mosque be built.

 

As each day goes by the problem gets worse and the enemy digs in and enhances their fighting positions in the United States.

 

UTT encourages all Americans to pay attention to what is going on around them in their community.  The enemy is inside the wall.  A muslim representing an Islamic organization has a 99.9% probability of being a jihadi because all of the prominent Islamic organizations in the United States are jihadi/hostile as a matter of fact.  Islamic leaders may give a friendly appearance, but they want what ISIS an Al Qaeda want – an Islamic state under sharia.

 

What are you doing to prevent your town from surrendering to the jihadis in your community?  Are you holding your leaders accountable?  Are you boldly speaking truth?  Do you understand the threat?

 

Sheriffs and Pastors are the most important people in this war.  We will attain victory when sheriff’s and their deputies understand the threat and aggressively go after it.  Law Enforcement can only do this if the citizens also understand the threat.  Pastors are the key to ensuring that happens, so they must speak truth in love to open the eyes of the American people.

_________________

Multiculturalism Destroying Europe – Is USA Next?

John R. Houk

© June 5, 2017

__________________

Islam’s Conquest of America One Town at a Time

 

Copyright 2017. Understanding the Threat. All rights reserved.

 

UTT Mission

 

Understanding the Threat provides threat-focused strategic and operational consultation, training, and education for federal, state, and local leadership and agencies in government, the private sector, and for private citizens. UTT is the only organization in America which is training leaders, elected officials, law enforcement, military personnel, and citizens, about the Global Islamic Movement and the jihadi networks in communities around the nation.  UTT is also the only organization showing security professionals and state leaders how to locate and map out jihadi organizations, locate jihadis, and dismantle the network at the local and state level. While UTT briefs and teaches about many of the threats external and internal to the United States, its primary concern is the threats to the Republic and the West in general from the Global Islamic Movement.

 

About John Guandolo

 

John Guandolo is the Founder of UnderstandingtheThreat.com, an organization dedicated to providing strategic and operational threat-focused consultation, education, and training for federal, state and local leadership and agencies, and designing strategies at all levels of the community to defeat the enemy.

 

Mr. Guandolo is a 1989 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy who took a commission as an Officer in the United States Marine Corps. He served with  READ THE REST

 

Clair Lopez at CPAC: Civilization Jihad and the Muslim Brotherhood in the USA and Canada


clair-lopez-former-cia

Clair Lopez educated listeners about the reality of Islamic Civilization Jihad in action against the USA and Canada at CPAC.

 

JRH 2/27/17

Please Support NCCR

***************

Clair Lopez at CPAC: Civilization Jihad and the Muslim Brotherhood in the USA and Canada

stealth-jihad 

By Baron Bodissey

Originally Gates of Vienna

February 26, 2017

The Counter Jihad Report

 

Clare M. Lopez is a strategic policy and intelligence expert who focuses on national defense, Islam, Iran, and counterterrorism issues. She is a former career operations officer with the Central Intelligence Agency, and is now a Senior Fellow at the Center for Security Policy.

 

Ms. Lopez spoke at a CPAC event on Thursday. Below is a video of the brief talk she gave about stealth Islamization and sharia in North America:

 

VIDEO: Claire Lopez FULL SPEECH- CPAC 2017

 

Posted by Right Side Broadcasting

Published on Feb 23, 2017

 

_________________

About The Counter Jihad Report

 

There is an urgent need for the public to become informed about the Global Islamic Jihad Movement. We must demand from our leaders that they become familiar with Islamic Law and jihadist ideology so that our counterterrorism policies can better protect us from this growing threat.

 

This blog is mainly a news aggregating site but also includes an extensive library of resources for studying Islam and networking with other Counter Jihad activists. My goal has been to pull from a variety of the most trusted and reliable sources to educate the public on the counter jihad movement. The many RSS feeds and counterjihad twitter feed in the sidebar are meant to provide a time saving jumping off point to access all the headlines and breaking news.

 

My Interest in Islamic Jihad stems from the 1983 Hezbollah truck bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut in which my cousin, Ken Haas, was killed. Ken left a career as a philosophy professor to work for the CIA and was the Station Chief in Beirut. He and his wife of one year had just finished lunch in Ken’s office at the Embassy and kissed good-bye. She had driven back to their apartment where she heard the explosion. After several agonizing days READ THE REST